wwm^'M^ 

I          UC-NRLF 

» 

HH 

B    3    tas    MAS                 |: 

Friends' 

Mfc'RICAN 

B?KAr;E  Conference 

^^m                        /  S>HILAPELPHIA,   1901 

- 

■jiMMMHB^, 

LIBRARY 

OF   THI". 

University  of  California. 


OIKX  OK 


Accession       |  ''0.083  Cl(us       


THE 


AMERICAN  FRIENDS' 


Peace  Conference 


HELD   AT 


PHILADELPHIA 


Twelfth  Month  12th,   13th  and  14th 


1901 


Pf)ilatjelpf)ta : 

PUBLISHED    BY    THE    CONFERENCE 

1902 


If  01 


Copies  of  this  Report  may  be  secured  at  the 
office  of  either  the  Friends'  Intelligence?-  or  the 
American  Friend,   Philadelphia. 


Press  of  Ferns  Jk  Leach,  29-31  Xorth  Seventh  Street,  Philadelphia. 


■-o-- 


1lntro^uction. 


ORIGIN  AND  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  first  step  toward  the  organization  of  the  Peace  Conference, 
the  proceedings  of  which  are  given  in  this  Report,  was  t;iken  at  the 
time  of  the  Seventh  Annnal  Conference  on  International  Arbitra- 
tion, held  by  Albert  K.  Smiley  at  Lake  Mohonk,  N.  Y.,  on  the  last 
three  days  of  Fifth  month,  1901.  At  this  Conference  a  meeting 
of  Friends  present  was  called  to  discuss  the  question  of  holding  a 
peace  conference  in  which  members  of  all  the  religious  bodies  in 
America  calling  themselves  Friends  should  be  invited  to  partici- 
pate.    The  following  were  present  at  this  meeting: 

Alexander  C.  Wood  and  wife,  Camden,  N.  J.;  Arthur  Perry  and 
wife,  Brookline.  Mass.;  Hannah  J.  Bailey,  Winthrop  Centre/ Maine; 
D.  Wheeler  Swift  and  wife,  Worcester,  Mass.;  Benjamin  F.  True- 
blood,  Boston,  Mass.;  John  B.  Garrett,  Rosemont,  Pa.;  Frances 
B.  G.  Branson,  Rosemont,  Pa.;  Philip  C.  Garrett,  Philadelphia; 
Wm.  P.  Bancroft  and  wife,  Wilmington,  Del.;  Clement  M.  Biddle 
and  wife,  Lansdowne,  Pa.;  Charles  Richardson  and  wife,  Philadel- 
phia; Howard  M.  Jenkins  and  wife,  Gwynedd,  Pa.;  Margaretta 
F.  Atkinson,  Philadelphia;  President  William  AV.  Birdsall  and  wife, 
Swarthmore,  Pa.;  Rufus  M.  Jones,  Haverford,  Pa.;  Joshua  L. 
Baily,  Philadelphia:  Alfred  H.  Smiley,  Minnewaska,  N.  Y.;  Sarah 
Collins,  Purchase,  N.  Y. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood  wa's  appointed  chairman  and  Howard 
M.  Jenkins  secretary.  After  a  free  interchange  of  views,  a  com- 
mittee consisting  of  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood  (chairman),  Arthur 
Perry,  Howard  M.  Jenkins,  Philip  C.  Garrett,  Hannah  J.  Bailey, 
William  W.  Birdsall  and  Rufus  M.  Jones  was  appointed  to  take  into 
further  consideration  '*  the  holding  of  a  conference  of  Friends  of 
all  bodies  in  America  on  the  subject  of  peace  and  arbitration,  with 
authority  to  add  to  their  number,  and  also  with  authority  to  make 
arrangements  for  such  conference,  if  in  the  judgment  of  the  com- 
mittee it  should  seem  proper  to  hold  one." 

This  committee,  in  order  to  obtain  the  opinions  of  l-'riends 
throughout  the  United  States  and  Canada,  published  the  following 
circular  in  the  Friends'  papers  in  Seventh  month. 

1 00083 


PROPOSED  FRIENDS'  NATIONAL  PEACE  CONFERENCE. 

To  Friends  in  America: 

It  has  been  felt  by  a  number  of  Friends  that  the  opening  year  of  the 
Twentieth  Century  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  pass  without  some  general 
public  manifestation,  on  the  part  of  all  in  America  who  call  themselves 
and  are  known  as  Friends,  of  their  peace  principles  and  faith.  The  hour 
is  a  most  important  and  even  critical  one  in  the  history  of  Christian 
civilization,  and  demands  the  active  and  speedy  movement  of  all  the 
forces  of  righteousness,  love  and  peace. 

Throughout  their  history  Friends  have  stood  for  goodwill  and  fellow- 
ship among  the  nations  as  well  as  between  individuals,  and  for  the  set- 
tlement of  international  disputes  by  the  friendly,  rational  method  of 
arbitration.  In  addition  to  their  direct  peace  work  as  a  religious  body, 
they  have  furnished  a  number  of  the  leaders  and  organizers  of  the  general 
peace  movement,  and  their  large  and  constant  influence  in  opposition  to 
war  as  radically  inconsistent  with  both  Christianity  and  humanity  has 
been  widely  recognized  and  felt. 

The  body  of  Fi'lends  in  America  is  in  a  position  to-day  to  speak  with 
greater  intelligence  and  wisdom,  and  therefore  with  greater  power,  than 
ever  before  in  its  history.  It  has  spread  across  and  over  the  continent, 
grown  in  numbers,  and  in  recent  years  developed  much  in  its  intellectual 
resources.  Its  history  and  the  history  of  the  world  during  its  existence 
have  been  full  of  instructive  lessons  as  to  the  power  of  peace  principles 
and  the  evils  of  Avar,  the  force  of  which  ought  to  stimulate  to  new  and 
better  service.  Do  we  not  owe  it  to  ourselves,  to  our  history,  to  our 
profession  before  the  church  and  the  world,  to  the  American  public  and 
to  mankind  everywhere,  to  declare  ourselves  anew  to-day — and  in  a  united 
way,  as  we  have  never  done  before — on  'che  gi-eat  and  pressing  question 
of  the  peace  of  the  world,  of  the  rescue  of  mankind  from  the  awful  in- 
iquities and  crushing  burdens  of  modern  militarism? 

So  far  all  to  whom  the  idea  of  such  a  conference  as  that  proposed  has 
been  suggested,  have  expressed  the  heartiest  approval  of  it,  and  also  their 
readiness  to  co-operate  as  far  as  possible  in  promoting  it.  At  the  time 
of  the  recent  Arbitration  Conference  held  at  Lake  Mohonk,  N.  Y.,  some 
thirty  Friends,  of  different  bodies,  wlio  were  present,  met,  and,  after 
earnest  consideration  of  the  subject,  came  to  the  unanimous  conclusion 
that  it  was  not  only  very  desirable,  but  a  clear  and  positive  duty,  that 
such  a  national  conference  be  held,  provided  Fi-iends  throughout  the 
country  in  sufficient  numbers  approve  of  the  project,  and  are  ready 
to  co-operate  in  it  as  they  may  be  able.  The  persons  named  below  were 
appointed  to  constitute  the  nucleus  of  a  national  committee,  with  power 
to  add  to  their  number,  to  lay  the  subject  before  Friends  in  general,  and 
if,  after  the  consultation,  it  should  be  deemed  wise  to  go  forAvard,  to 
have  charge  of  the  arrangements  for  the  conference;  the  committee  to 
be  enlarged  into  a  representative  national  one. 

It  is  proposed  to  hold  the  conference  in  Philadelphia,  the  city  of  Wil- 
liam Penn,  some  time  near  the  end  of  this  year,  for  about  three  days. 

The  plan  is  to  make  it  a  mass  conference,  that  all  interested  Friends 
may  attend  as  members,  without  the  necessity  of  any  official  appointment. 

The  progi-am,  it  is  thought  best,  should  consist  of  carefully-prepared 
papers,  by  the  ablest  and  most  experienced  thinkers  and  workers  in  the 
peace  cause  to  be  found  among  Friends  (to  be  selected  by  the  National 
Committee),  upon  various  phases  of  the  peace  question, — religious,  his- 
torical, sociological,  educational,  political,  etc.;  a  limited  amount  of  time 
to  be  given  to  general  discussion;  the  proceedings  to  be  afterwards  pub- 
lished for  distribution. 

If  the  conference  is  held,  it  will  be  necessary  to  have  a  local  commit- 
tee of  Friends  in  and  about  Philadelphia,  to  provide  a  suitable  hall,  make 


nnanpoments  for  the  cntortainniont  of  visitors,  etc.;  and  also  a  finance 
comniittoe  to  secure  throiijfli  voluntary  contributions  funds  for  defraying 
the  expenses  of  the  mcetiufj- — rent  of  hall,  advertising,  printing  of  proceed- 
ings, bringing  speakers  from  a  distance,  etc. 

The  Provisional  Coinniittee,  whose  names  are  given  below,  desire  to  hear 
at  once,  in  response  ti>  this  circular,  from  Fiiends  in  all  parts  of  the 
country,  and  invite  the  freest  expression  of  opinion,  in  brief  form,  as  to 
the  proposed  conference. 

Address  all  communications  to  IJenjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Chairman,  3 
Somerset  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

Hannah  J.  Bailey,  Winthrop  Centre,  Me. 
Wii.i.iAM  W.  BiRDSAi.L,  Swarthmore,  Pa. 
PiULiP  C.  Garrett,  Philadelphia. 
Howard  M.  Jenkins,  Philadelphia. 
Ri'Fi  s  M.  Jones,  Haverford,  Pa. 
Arthur  Perry,  Brookline,  Mass. 
Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Boston. 


The  responses  to  this  circular  were  so  numerous  and  cordial 
that  the  committee  felt  the  duty  to  be  clear  to  proceed  with  the 
arrangements  for  the  Conference.  A  second  circular,  stating  that 
it  had  been  decided  to  hold  the  Conference,  was  published  in  The 
American  Friend  and  The  Friends'  Intelligencer  at  the  end  of 
Eighth  month.  The  provisional  committee  then  enlarged  its  num- 
ber and  constituted  the  following  General  Committee,  which  pro- 
ceeded to  prepare  the  program  and  make  other  necessary  arrange- 
ments for  holding  the  Conference: 

Eliza  C.  Aemstrong,  Centre  Valley,  Ind. 
Haatnah  J.  Bailey,  Winthrop  Center,  Me. 
President  W.  W.  Birdsall,  Swarthmore,  Pa. 
Haxnah  W.  Blackburn,  Zanesfield,  Ohio. 
William  G.  Browx,  Toronto,  Canada. 
Emilie  U.  Burgess,  Highland,  JST.  Y. 
Clarksox  Butterworth,  Waynesville,  Ohio. 
Eliza  H,  Carey,  Wichita,  Kan. 
William  R.  Clark,  Emerson,  Ohio. 
Elizabeth  H.  Coale,  Holder,  111. 
J.  Elwood  Cox,  High  Point,  N.  C. 
Sarah  Ann  Dale,  Pickering,  Ont.,  Can. 
L.  Maria  Deane,  Pleasant  Plain,  Iowa. 
Jane  Edgerton,  St.  Clairsville,  0. 
Prof.  A.  M.  Elliott,  Baltimore,  Md. 
Allen  J.  Flitcraft,  Oak  Park,  111. 
Philip  C.  Garrett,  Logan  (Philadelphia),  Pa. 
Job  S.  Gidley,  North  Dartmouth,  Mass. 
Abigail  J.  Hadley,  Clarksville,  0. 
Margaret  W.  Haines,  Cheltenham,  Pa. 
Joseph  Hill,  Emerson,  0. 
Prof.  C.  W.  Hodgin,  Pichmond,  Ind. 


6 

William  M.  Jackson,  New  York,  X.  Y. 

Dr.  0.  E.  Jaxxet,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Susan  W.  Janney,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Allen  Jay,  Eichmond,  Ind. 

Howard  M.  Jenkins,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

EuFUS  M.  Jones,  Haverford,  Pa. 

Harriet  Cox  McDowell,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

President  Edwin  McGrew,  ISTewberg,  Ore. 

Elizabeth  B.  Miles,  Newberg,  Ore. 

Dr.  William  L.  Pearson,  Oskaloosa,  Iowa. 

Arthur  Perry,  Brookline,  Mass. 

Esther  Pugh,  Selma,  0. 

Peter  W.  Raidabaugh,  Plainfield,  Ind. 

Eleanora  H.  Eobinson,  Eichmond,  Ind. 

Elias  H.  Eogers,  Toronto,  Can. 

Daniel  Smiley,  Lake  Mohonk,  N.  Y. 

President  Edmund  Stanley,  Wichita.  Kan. 

President  Charles  E.  Tebbetts,  Whittier,  Cal. 

EiCHARD  H.  Thomas,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Boston,  Mass. 

President  J.  B.  Unthank,  Wilming-ton,  0. 

Ella  C.  Veeder,  Whittier,  Cal. 

Elisha  H.  Walker,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Jane  White,  Baltimore,  Md. 

James  Wood,  Mount  Kisco,  N.  Y. 

Mary  C.  Woody,  Wlnston-Salem,  N".  C. 

Samuel  P.  Zavitz,  Coldstream,  Ont.,  Can. 


A  Finance  Committee,  consisting  of  Alexander  C.  Wood,  chair- 
man, Camden,  N.  J.;  Eobert  M.  Janney,  treasurer,  Philadelphia; 
Joshua  L.  Baily,  Philadelphia;  William  P.  Bancroft,  Wilmington, 
Del.;  Isaac  H.  Clothier,  Pliiladelphia,  and  Asa  S.  Wing,  Philadel- 
phia, was  appointed,  and  through  their  solicitation  ample  funds 
were  secured  to  meet  all  the  expenses  of  the  Conference. 

The  Local  Committee  of  Arrangements  chosen,  to  whose 
earnest,  self-sacrificing  and  wisely-directed  efforts  in  arranging  for 
the  meetings  and  providing  for  the  entertainment  of  members  from 
a  distance  the  success  of  the  Conference  was  so  largely  due,  con- 
sisted of  the  following  persons: 

John  B.  Garrett,  chairman;  Samuel  S.  Ash,  Mordecai  T.  Bar- 
tram,  Clement  M.  Biddle,  Benjamin  Cadbury,  Hannah  W.  Cad- 
bury,  Arabella  Carter,  Isabel  Chambers,  Julia  Cope  Collins,  W.  W. 
Comfort,  Howard  M.  Cooper,  Joseph  Elkinton,  Sarah  W.  Elkinton, 
Sarah  B.  Flitcraft,  Joseph  E.  Haines,  Edward  H.  Magill.  John  B. 
Ehoads,  J.  Henry  Scattergood,  Isaac  Sharpless,  Walter  P.  Stokes. 
Agnes  L.  Tierney,  Mary  Travilla,  William  S.  Yaux.  Jr..  Emma 
Wain,  Joseph  S.  Walton,  Emma  S.  Webster,  Mary  E.  G.  Williams, 


John  C.  Winston,  Stanley  R.  Yarnall  and  William  Y.  Warner. 
With  this  committee  the  local  members  of  the  General  Committee, 
William  W.  Birdsall,  Philip  C.  Garrett,  Susan  W.  Janney,  Howard 
M.  Jenkins  and  Rufus  M.  Jones,  regularly  met. 

The  program  as  finally  revised  and  completed  when  the  Con- 
ference opened  was  as  follows: 

WITHERSPOON  HALL,  PHILADELPHIA, 

Twelfth  month  12th,,  13th,  14th,  1901. 

IproQiam. 

FIFTH-DAY  MORNING. 
JoHX  B.  Garrett  (Philadelphia),  Presiding. 

10.00.     Devotion. 

10.10.     Address  by  the  Chairman. 

Announcements. 

10.30.     "  The  New  Testament  Grounds  of  Peace." 

Professor  Elbert  Rtissei.i.,  recentlj'  of  Earlham  College. 

10.55.     "  Elements  of  Peace  Doctrine  in  the  Old  Testament." 

Dr.  George  A.  Barton,  Bryn  Mawr  College. 

11.15.     "  The  Failure  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Regard 
to  Peace  Principles." 

Mary  Chavner  Woody,  Winston-Salem,  N.  C. 

11.35.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

12.30.     Adjournment. 


FIFTH-DAY   AFTERNOON. 

Howard  M.  Jenkins  (Editor  of  "  Friends'  Intelligencer  "), 

Presiding. 

3.30.     Remarks  by  the  Chairman. 

3.45.     "  The  Early  Friends'  Conception  of  War  and  Peace." 

William  G.  Hubbard,  Lansing,  Mich. 


8 

4.05.     "  The  Growing  Iniquity  of  War." 

President  A.  Rosenberger,  Penn  Collegej  Iowa. 

4.25.     "  The  Inherent  Immorality  of  "War." 

Mariana  W.  Chapman,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

<.45.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

r.20.     Adjournment. 

FIFTH-DAY   EVENING. 

President  James  B.  Unthank  (Wilmington  College,  Ohio), 
Presiding. 

8.00.     Remarks  by  the  Chairman. 

8.15.     "Early  Christianity  and  War." 

James  Wood,  Mount  Kisco,  N.  Y. 

8.40.     "  Attitude  of  Christians  as  to  War  and  Peace." 

Dr.  Jesse  H.  Holmes,  Swarthmore  College. 

9.05.     "  The  Christian  Idea  of  Force." 

Dr.  Richard  H.  Thomas,  Baltimore,  Md. 

9.30.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

10.00.     Adjournment. 

SIXTH-DAY  MORNING. 
President  M.  Carey  Thomas  (Bryn  Mawr  College),  Presiding. 

10.00.     Devotion. 

10.10.     Remarks  by  the  Chairman. 

10.25.     "  Importance    of    teaching   Peace    Principles   in 
Bible  Schools." 

Peter  W.  Raidabaugh,  Plainfield,  Ind. 

10.45.     "  The  Principal  Influences  Making  for  Peace,  and 
How  They  May  be  Strengthened." 
President  Edmund  Stanley,  Friends'  University,  Wichita,  Kan. 

11.10.     "  Woman's  Responsibility  and  Opportunities  for 
Promoting  Peace  Principles." 

Mary  Jane  Weaver,  Batavia,  N.  Y. 

11.30.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

12.30.     Adjournment. 


9 

SIXTH-DAY  AFTERNOON. 

President  William  W.  Birdsall  (Swarthmorc  College),  Presiding. 
3.30.     Eemarks  by  the  Chairman. 

3.45.     "  Present  Encouragements  for  the  Friends  of  Peace." 

Prof.  Et.len  C.  Wright,  Wilmington  College,  O. 

4.10.     "  Internationalism." 

Hannah  J.  Bailey,  Winthrop  Center,  Maine. 

4.30.     "  Peace  Principles  in  Political  Life  and  Institutions." 

Augustine  Jones,  LL.B.,  Principal  Friends  School, 
Providence,  R.  I. 

4.60.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

5.20.     Adjournment. 

SIXTH-DAY  EVENING. 
Joshua  L.  Baily  (Philadelphia),  Presiding. 

8.00.     Eemarks  by  the  Chairman. 

8.15.     "  To  What  Extent  are  Peace  Principles  Practicable?  " 

President  Isaac  Sharpless,  Haverford  College. 

8  40.     "  William  Penn's  Peace  Work." 

Philip  C.  Garrett,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

9.05.     "  The  Present  Position  of  the  International  Peace 
Movement." 

Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Boston,  Mass. 

9.30.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

10.00.     Adjournment. 

SEVENTH-DAY    MORNING. 

Aethue  Peeet  (Boston,  Mass.),  Presiding. 

[Meetings  on  Seventh-day  in  Twelfth  Street  Meeting  House.] 

10.00.     Devotion. 

10.10.     Remarks  by  the  Chairman. 

10.20.     "  The  Duty  of  the  Christian  Church  at  the  Pres- 
ent Time  in  the  Movement  to  Abolish  War." 

Henry  W.  Wilbur,  New  York  City. 


10 

10.40.     "  Mistakes  and  Failures  of  Friends  in  Their  Peace 
Work.'' 

President  James  B.  Unthaxk,  Wilmington  College,  O. 

11.00.     "  The  Makers  of  Peace." 

Dean  Elizabeth  Powell  Bond,  Swarthmore  College. 

11.20.     "  The  True  Spirit  of  Peace." 

Dr.  William  L.  Pearson,  Penn  College,  Iowa. 

11.45.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

12.30.     Adjournment. 

SEVENTH-DAY   AFTEENOON. 

SuSAX  W.  Janney  (Philadelphia),  Presiding. 

3.30.     Eemarks  by  the  Chairman. 

3.45.     '•  The  Eelation  of  Quaker  Women  to  Peace." 

Kmilie  U.  Burgess,  Highland,  N.  Y. 

4.10.     "  AYar  Inconsistent  with  the  Genius  of  Quakerism." 

President  Charles  E.  Tebbetts,  Whittier  College,  Cal. 

4.20.     ''  Constancy  in  our  Peace  Sentiment  and  Effort." 

President  Edwin  McGrew,  Pacific  College,  Oregon. 

4.30.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

5.00.     Miscellaneous  Business. 

5.20.     Adjournment. 

SEVENTH-DAY  EVENING. 
President  Isaac  Sharpless  (Haverford  College,  Pa.).  Presiding. 

8.00.     "  Eemedies  for  the  Prevailing  Militarism." 

Josiah  W.  Leeds,  West  Chester,  Pa. 

8.20.     ''■  The  Influence  of  Quaker  Peace  Ideals  in  Our 
National  Life." 

Dr.  0.  Edward  Janney,  Baltimore,  Md. 

8.40.     "  Peace  as  Involved  in  the  Christian  Method." 

Dk.  Rxtfls  M.  Jones,  Haverford  College,  Editor  of 
"  The  American  Friend." 

9.00.     Discussion  of  Papers. 

9.30.     Closing  Eemarks  by  the  Chairman. 


THE    AMERICAN    FRIENDS'    PEACE 
CONFERENCE. 


JFiret  Session, 

The  American  Friends'  Peace  Conference,  the  calling  of  which 
is  explained  in  the  Introdnction  to  this  Keport,  met  for  its  first 
session  in  "Witherspoon  Hall,  Philadelphia,  Twelfth  month  12th, 
1901,  at  10.00  a.m.  John  B.  Garrett,  of  Philadelphia,  presided. 
In  opening  the  Conference  the  Chairman  said: 

We  all  recognize  that  the  only  proper  beginning  for  such  a  Con- 
ference as  this  npon  which  we  are  entering  is  the  seeking  of  the 
favor  of  Almighty  God;  and  as  true  spiritual  worship  is  a  matter 
between  the  individual  soul  and  the  Creator,  I  suggest  that  a  few 
moments  be  first  given  to  silent  communion  with  Him.  While  we 
are  so  engaged,  should  there  be  a  feeling  on  the  mind  of  any  of  the 
duty  of  vocal  prayer,  we  shall  all  appreciate  its  appropriateness  and 
endeavor  to  be  baptized  into  the  spirit  of  it. 

During  the  period  of  devotion  prayer  was  offered  by  Rufus  M. 
Jones  and  James  Wood.  Stephen  E.  Smith,  of  Pleasantville,  N.  Y., 
in  a  few  brief  sentences  said  that  it  was  fitting  that  they  should  all 
come  with  feelings  of  self-abnegation  and  of  true  humility  of  soul 
before  Him  w^ho  had  called  them  to  serve  Him;  that  they  should 
seek  the  outpouring  of  His  infinite  life  and  love  and  power  in  their 
midst,  that  they  might  be  able  to  enunciate  the  doctrines  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  some  impression  not  only  in  the  United  States,  but  also  in 
other  parts  of  the  world;  that  the  day  might  be  hastened  when  "  the 
kinu'doms  of  this  world  should  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord 
and  of  His  Christ." 

The  Chairman:  The  Local  Committee  of  Arrangements  has 
designated,  as  Secretaries  for  the  Conference,  Elizabeth  Lloyd  and 
Elizabeth  B.  Cadbury.  Their  duties,  they  may  feel  assured,  are  not 
likely  to  be  onerous,  seeing  that  the  papers  which  have  been  pre- 
pared have  been  handed  in,  in  manuscript  or  typewriting;  and  be- 
cause we  have  also  a  stenographer  to  take  reports  of  extemporane- 
ous remarks. 

Most  of  us  are  aware  that  under  divine  l)lessing  the  origin  of 
this  Conference  is  due  to  one  who  has  spent  many  years  in  study- 
ing the  great  problems  of  internationalism,  war  and  peace,  histori- 
cally and  otherwise.  He  is  now  the  General  Secretary  of  the  Amer- 
ican Peace  Society.    I  am  sure  it  is  due  to  you,  as  also  to  him,  that 


12 

yoi.  should  hear  from  his  own  lips  the  account  of  the  beginnings  of 
this  movement.  I  will  therefore  call  upon  Dr.  Benjamin  F.  True- 
blood,  of  Boston,  to  speak  to  us  before  we  undertake  other  business. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  I  cannot  tell  you,  dear  friends,  how 
great  pleasure  it  gives  me  this  morning  to  meet  so  many  of  you 
here,  from  so  many  different  parts  of  the  country.  To  see  you  here 
is  sufficient  compensation  for  anything  that  I  may  have  been  per- 
mitted to  do  in  the  origination  of  the  Conference. 

Only  a  few  words  are  needed  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Conference. 
For  some  months  of  last  year  I  felt  that  the  time  had  come  when 
the  various  religious  bodies  in  this  country  calling  themselves 
Friends  should  unite,  both  for  the  sake  of  their  own  membership 
and  that  of  the  public  at  large,  in  a  fresh  declaration  of  their  views 
on  the  subject  of  peace.  The  Society  in  its  different  branches  has 
spread,  as  you  know,  over  almost  the  entire  continent.  No  attempt, 
so  far  as  I  know,  had  ever  been  made  to  get  members  of  all  the 
branches  together  and  have  them  speak  in  a  united  voice  on  the 
great  subject  of  peace.  I  had  felt  for  many  months  that  the  time 
had  come  for  something  of  the  kind  to  be  done.  I  approached  a 
few  Friends  of  the  different  bodies,  and  found  them  all  in  sympa- 
thy with  the  idea. 

At  the  time  of  the  Lake  Mohonk  Arbitration  Conference,  held 
by  our  friend  Albert  I\.  Smiley,  at  the  last  of  May  this  year,  I  ven- 
tured to  call  together  the  Friends  who  were  there,  representing  the 
three  principal  bodies  of  Friends.  I  found  them,  without  excep- 
tion, in  sympathy  with  the  thought  as  it  had  formulated  itself  in 
my  mind.  It  was  decided  by  those  present  to  appoint  a  Provisional 
Committee,  with  power  to  add  to  its  number,  and  to  issue  an  ad- 
dress to  the  Fiiends  of  the  continent,  in  order  to  learn  whether  they 
felt  as  we  did  about  it.  The  address  was  duly  issued,  and  published 
in  the  Friends'  papers.  The  result  was  that  from  East  and  West, 
North  and  South,  there  came  such  a  voice  of  approval  that  the  Pro- 
visional Committee  felt  that  it  was  right  to  go  forward  with  the 
subject.  A  second  circular  was  issued,  saying  that  it  had  been  defi- 
nitely decided  to  hold  the  Conference,  and  the  Provisional  Com- 
mittee proceeded  to  constitute  a  Ceneral  Committee  on  Organiza- 
tion (see  Introduction),  a  Local  Committee  of  Arrangements,  a  Fi- 
nance Committee,  and  to  make  preparations  for  the  Conference. 

The  Committee,  in  making  arrangements,  preparing  the  pro- 
gram, etc.,  have  endeavored  to  have  not  only  the  Friends  of  all 
bodies,  but,  as  far  as  possible,  the  Friends  of  all  sections  of  the 
country,  represented.  Of  course  we  could  not  use  all  the  Friends  of 
the  country  either  upon  the  committees,  or  upon  the  program,  but 
we  have  tried  to  get  representative  men  and  women  from  the  dif- 
ferent bodies,  and  from  different  sections  of  the  continent.  This 
has  been  a  somewhat  difficult  and  delicate  task,  as  you  will  all  rec- 
ognize. 


13 

We  have  found  it  to  be  necessary,  in  making  up  our  program, 
in  order  to  get  as  wide  a  representation  and  as  great  a  variety  of 
thought  as  possible,  to  limit  the  papers  to  twenty  minutes  in  length. 

As  we  gather  together  this  morning,  I  feel  sure  that  it  is  in  the 
divine  ordering.  God  has  led  us  in  the  organization  of  the  Con- 
ference, and  I  believe  He  will  lead  us  in  the  accomplishment  of  the 
work  for  which  we  have  met,  and  that  He  will  enable  us  to  do 
something  that  shall  be  of  influence  in  the  spread  of  His  kingdom 
of  righteousness,  love  and  peace.  I  hope  that  throughout  the  en- 
tire Conference  we  shall  all  abide  under  a  sense  of  His  presence, 
His  power  and  His  guidance. 

I  want  to  say  one  word  more:  We  wish  you  all  to  feel  that  this 
is  your  Conference.  If  at  any  time  during  the  discussions  which 
will  follow  the  papers  you  feel  that  you  have  something  to  say,  we 
want  you  to  feel  perfect  freedom  to  speak.  We  do  not  wish  you  to 
throw  the  responsibility  of  the  meetings  too  much  on  those  of  us 
who  have  organized  the  Conference.  Xow  that  the  Conference  has 
met,  it  is  yours  as  well  as  ours;  it  belongs  to  all  of  us;  and  let  us  all 
put  an  amount  of  devotion,  thought  and  prayerful  interest  into  it 
which  shall  make  it  a  very  great  success  under  the  blessing  of  God. 

I  want  to  thank  you  all  this  morning  for  your  presence  here, 
and  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Organization  to  give  you  a 
most  hearty  welcome. 

TnE  Chairman:  There  are  several  announcements  that  ought 
to  be  made  at  this  time,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  now  within 
three  minutes  of  the  time  designated  on  the  program  for  the  read- 
ing of  the  first  paper,  I  will  ask  you  to  excuse  me  from  making 
any  remarks  at  this  time,  as  the  opening  has  been  so  well  done  by 
our  friend  Dr.  Trueblood.  I  will  watch  my  opportunity  to  say  any- 
thing that  is  on  my  mind  as  the  discussions  of  the  papers  go  on. 

In  the  first  place,  I  want  to  ask  that  those  coming  from  a  dis- 
tance will  make  themselves  known  to  the  Entertainment  Commit- 
tee, of  which  our  friend  William  Y.  Warner,  sitting  at  my  left,  is 
Chairman.  If  they  have  not  homes  already  they  will  be  provided 
for. 

Let  me  remind  all  that  punctuality  is  one  of  the  graces  in  which 
we  Friends  are  supposed  to  have  been  educated.  As  the  doors  will 
be  closed  during  the  period  of  devotional  exercises  each  morning, 
it  is  desired  that  all  in  attendance  shall  have  entered  the  room  and 
taken  their  seats  before  the  designated  hour  of  10  o'clock. 

It  is  the  wish  of  those  w^ho  have  organized  the  Conference  that 
the  name  and  address  of  every  one  in  attendance  shall  be  left  here. 
If  you  will  kindly  write  your  names  and  addresses  distinctly  on  the 
cards  which  have  been,  or  will  be,  handed  to  you,  and  give  them 
to  one  of  the  secretaries  or  ushers,  we  shall  feel  grateful. 

When  we  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  the  papers,  some  one 
who  has  been  designated  to  open  the  discussion  will  occupy  not  to 


14 

exceed  ten  minutes,  after  which  the  subject  will  be  open  to  the  whole 
house.  If  we  are  to  get  through  in  three  days  the  large  amount 
of  work  before  us  it  will  be  necessary  to  limit  the  speeches  during 
the  discussions  to  five  minutes.  Those  who  rise  to  speak,  unless 
known  to  the  Chairman,  are  kindly  requested  to  give  their  names 
and  addresses,  as  this  will  make  you  known  to  the  audience,  and 
thus  greatly  add  to  the  interest  of  the  occasion. 

One  of  the  first  matters  of  business  is  that  of  the  appointment 
of  a  Committee  on  Credentials. 

Isaac  Wilson:  I  ofiier  the  following:  ''  Resolved,  that  a  Com- 
mittee on  Credentials,  consisting  of  five  meml^ers,  be  appointed  by 
the  Chair,  to  which  credentials  of  delegates  are  hereby  referred  for 
examination,  with  instruction  to  present  to  a  future  session  a  list 
of  all  duly-appointed  delegates,  their  post-office  addresses  and  the 
communities  which  they  respectively  represent." 

The  Chairman:  You  hear  the  resolution  which  has  been  of- 
fered by  Isaac  Wilson,  of  Canada. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  I  second  the  resolution,  and  desire 
to  say  that  I  hope  it  will  give  rise  to  no  misunderstanding.  While 
there  are  certain  meetings  and  groups  of  persons  which,  in  order  to 
be  represented,  have  joined  in  sending  delegates,  it  is,  I  hope,  un- 
derstood that  this  is  a  mass  Conference  and  open  to  all  Friends. 
Any  member  of  any  branch  of  the  Society  who  is  present  is  just 
as  much  a  member  of  the  Conference  as  anybody  appointed  by  a 
quarterly,  yearly  or  monthly  meeting,  or  by  any  group  of  Friends. 

The  resolution  offered  by  Isaac  Wilson  was  adopted. 

The  Chairman:  I  ought  to  add  that  we  are  not  exclusive  by 
any  means.  The  Conference  has  been  widely  advertised  in  and 
about  Philadelphia,  and  not  a  little  at  a  distance.  We  hope  that 
our  Christian  brothers  and  sisters  who  are  about  us  will  come  in 
with  the  utmost  freedom  and  share  with  us  the  benefits  of  this  oc- 
casion. Our  purposes  are  largely  educational,  and  they  are  to  be 
realized  in  a  great  degree  by  the  attendance  of  those  who  are 
about  us. 

The  Chairman  then  named  the  following  as  the  Committee  on 
Credentials:  Isaac  Wilson,  Chairman;  Timothy  B.  Hussey,  Emma 
Wain,  Joseph  Potts  and  Hannah  Collins. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  I  offer  the  following:  "Resolved, 
that  a  Business  Committee,  consisting  of  not  less  than  seven  mem- 
bers, be  appointed  by  the  Chair,  to  which  shall  be  referred  without 
discussion  all  resolutions  offered  in  the  Conference.    Said  Commit- 


15 

tee  shall  prepare  a  Declaration,  to  be  submitted  to  the  Conference 
towards  its  close  for  its  consideration  and  possible  adoption,  and 
the  Coniniittee  shall  have  power  to  add  to  its  number." 

The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  the  Chairman  named,  as  the 
Business  Committee,  Dr.  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  Chairman;  Presi- 
dent William  W.  Birdsall,  Howard  M.  Jenkins,  Susan  W.  Janney, 
Philip  C.  Garrett,  Dr.  Rufus  M.  Jones,  Dr.  0.  Edward  Janney  and 
Professor  Ellen  C.  Wright.  The  Committee  was  afterwards  en- 
larged by  the  addition  of  President  Edmund  Stanley,  Esther  Pugh, 
Peter  W.  Eaida1)augh  and  Robert  E.  Pretlow. 

Howard  M.  Jenkins:  I  have  received,  in  my  capacity  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  General  and  also  the  Local  Committee,  a  number  of 
communications.  Some  of  them  are  resolutions,  or  minutes,  ex- 
pressing sympathy  with  the  object  of  the  meeting,  and  others  are 
names  of  delegates.  I  take  this  opportunity  of  handing  these  to  the 
Chairman,  to  give  to  the  two  committees  that  have  ju?;t  been  ap- 
pointed. 

The  Chateman:  One  more  matter  of  business.  The  Local 
Committee  of  Arrangements  have  asked  me  to  say  that  it  is  their 
judgment  that  the  proceedings  of  this  Conference  will  have  such 
permanent  value  that  they  should  be  published.  It  is  suggested 
that  the  Business  Committee  take  the  subject  under  consideration, 
both  as  to  style  of  publication,  if  it  shall  seem  expedient  to  pub- 
lish the  proceedings,  and  the  size  of  the  edition.  Those  questions 
can  be  best  answered  after  the  Committee  have  had  communicat'on 
with  those  in  attendance  and  have  learned  what  the  desires  of  indi- 
viduals or  of  peace  associations  may  be.  The  question  is  largely  one 
of  means.  Funds  have  already  been  provided,  through  the  generous 
contributions  of  Friends,  for  paying  all  the  other  expenses  of  the 
Conference,  but  the  question  of  publication  was  not  taken  into  con- 
sideration.   It  will  be  left,  therefore,  with  the  Business  Committee. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  If  any  who  are  present  would  like 
to  subscribe  for  a  number  of  copies  of  the  Report  for  their  own  per- 
sonal use,  and  will  communicate  with  us,  the  Business  Committee 
will  know  much  better  how  to  proceed  in  the  matter. 

The  Chairman:  The  time  has  come  for  the  reading  of  the 
papers  prepared  for  this  session.  The  first  on  the  program  is  on 
"  The  New  Testament  Grounds  of  Peace,"  by  Professor  Elbert  Rus- 
sell. Owing  to  ill  health  Elbert  Russell  has  found  himself  unable 
to  be  present.  He  has  entrusted  his  paper  to  his  personal  friend, 
Robert  E.  Pretlow,  of  Wilmington,  Ohio,  who  will  read  it  to  us. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   GROUNDS    OF   PEACE. 

BY  PROFESSOR  ELBERT  RUSSELL,  CHICAGO. 

The  grounds  of  peace  in  the  New  Testament  are  found  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  as  it  is  exemplified  in  his  life  and  interpreted  by 
the  apostles.  We  must  take  Jesus's  example  as  the  standard  by 
which  to  interpret  his  teaching.  Otherwise  it  is  possible  to  deduce 
from  isolated  sayings  of  the  Master  the  most  divergent  and  contra- 
dictory ideas  of  right  and  wrong. 

From  the  Gospels  we  learn  that  Jesus  explicitly  refused  the 
sword  or  any  other  violent  means  to  propagate  his  doctrines  or 
to  found  his  kingdom,  relying  only  on  the  power  of  truth,  love  and 
self-sacrifice  to  overthrow  evil  and  secure  the  triumph  of  righteous- 
ness. From  his  character  and  plans  the  military  virtues  and  ideals 
were  conspicuously  absent.  The  pacific  virtues  of  the  prophet  and 
sage  characterized  his  life  and  determined  his  career.  At  the  time 
of  his  great  temptation,  he  was  compelled  to  decide  by  what 
means  he  would  seek  to  make  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  his  own. 
Jewish  expectancy  said  the  Messiah  would  secure  his  dominion  by 
military  power.  Universal  experience  said  there  was  no  way  to 
world  dominion  except  by  the  sword.  On  the  mount  of  temptation 
Satan  offered  Jesus  the  sovereignty  of  the  world  on  the  same  evil 
terms  on  which  others  had  before  held  it — by  military  force.  But 
Jesus  refused  to  be  a  military  king.  Again,  in  Gethsemane,  Peter 
offered  Jesus  the  service  of  his  sword,  but  Jesus  declined  both 
Peter^s  sword  and  that  of  the  angelic  legions  that  were  at  his  call. 
Standing  before  Pilate  Jesus  acknowledged  himself  a  king — a  king 
whose  power  rested  on  truth,  not  on  might. 

Such  was  Jesus  in  a  world  organized  politically,  socially  and  re- 
ligiously on  a  basis  of  military  force;  in  which  military  prowess  and 
conquest  were  regarded  as  the  sign  of  greatness  for  the  individual 
and  the  nation.  In  that  world  the  disappointing,  incomprehensi- 
ble, maddening  thing  about  him  was  his  pretence  to  kingship 
without  an  army  to  back  him — his  claim  to  a  kingdom  which  was 
not  of  that  world.  To  the  Jews  who  were  expecting  a  military  Mes- 
siah he  was  a  stumbling-block.  To  the  Eomans,  who  knew  no 
power  but  law  enforced  by  the  sword,  he  was  an  enigma.  To  the 
Greeks  whose  wisdom  did  not  transcend  a  military  society  he  was  a 
fool.  The  world  of  that  day  could  have  understood  the  Christ  with 
a  sword,  but  the  cross  of  Christ  was  an  offence. 

If  there  is  in  the  life  of  Jesus  a  real  incarnation  of  God  (and 
there  is),  his  whole  life  is  an  example  for  us  to  follow,  and  in  this 
example  is  found  the  surest  ground  of  peace  in  the  New  Testament, 
for  the  ways  he  trod  are  paths  of  peace. 

The  grounds  of  peace  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  His  apos- 
tles are  threefold:  (1)  Jesus  removed  the  distinction  between  fel- 
low-countryman and  foreigner,  so  far  as  men's  moral  obligations  to 
each  are  concerned,  thus  removing  any  pretext  for  international 


17 

war  which  would  not  also  furnish  a  justification  for  intestine  war. 
(2)  Jesus  forbade  the  use  of  violence  to  promote  righteousness  or 
root  out  evil.  (3)  Jesus  instructs  his  disciples  to  follow  his  ex- 
ample in  seeking  to  extend  his  kingdom  by  relying  exclusively  on 
spiritual 'lathor  than  physical  force,  the  forces  of  peace  and  not 
those  of  war.    Let  us  consider  briefly  each  of  these  points. 

I.  The  Jewish  people  had  been  trained  to  feel  their  peculiarity 
among  the  nations,  and  had  been  encouraged  to  keep  aloof  from 
them  during  their  formative  period,  lest  they  should  become  pol- 
luted morally  and  religiously  by  intercourse  with  their  heathen 
neighbors.  This  attitude,  which  had  become  very  pronounced  in 
Christ's  time,  was  expressed  in  the  saying:  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  and  hate  thine  enemy; "  in  which  expression  "  neigh- 
bor "  means  "  fellow-countryman  "  and  "  enemy  "  means  ''  for- 
eigner." But  this  spirit  of  clannishness  and  of  hatred  to  foreigners 
could  not  be  part  of  the  world  religion  which  Christ  came  to  es- 
tablish. Christ  extended  to  all  men  the  privileges  and  obligations 
of  fellow-countrymen.  "  But  I  say  unto  you,  love  your  enemies 
(foreigners  with  whom  you  have  dealings)  and  pray  for  them  that 
persecute  you  (the  Eomans)  that  ye  may  be  sons  of  your  Father  who 
is  in  Heaven;  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the 
good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust.  For  if  ye  love 
them  that  love  you  (your  compatriots)  what  reward  have  ye?  Do 
not  even  the  publicans  (Roman  tax-collectors)  the  same?  And  if 
ye  salute  your  brethren  only,  what  do  ye  more  than  others?  Do  not 
even  the  Gentiles  the  same?  Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect  (in  im- 
partial love)  even  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect." 

This  is  likewise  the  lesson  of  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan. 
The  young  man  would  accept  Christ's  summary  of  the  law,  "  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  and  yet  justify  his  Jewish  ex- 
clusiveness  by  the  word  "  neighbor."  Jesus  tells  him  how  one  of 
the  most  hated  of  foreigners,  the  Samaritan,  proved  neighbor  to  a 
Jew  whom  his  selfish  fellow-countrymen  had  neglected.  The  love 
due  a  neighbor  knows  no  national  bounds.  How  is  war  between  dif- 
ferent countries  possible,  even  for  so-called  patriotic  reasons,  if  one 
is  to  treat  the  foreigner  as  though  he  were  a  compatriot? 

II.  In  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  Jesus  teaches  that  no  violence 
is  to  be  used  to  remove  evil  men  from  the  world  and  to  promote  the 
cause  of  righteousness.  Jesus's  first  parable,  on  that  day  of  parables 
by  the  sea — the  parable  of  the  Sower — had  dispelled  whatever 
hopes  the  disciples  may  have  had  of  the  easy  and  immediate  tri- 
umph of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  showed  them  that  the  preached 
word  was  not  always  to  be  fruitful.  We  know  something  of  the 
character  and  thought  of  these  men.  James  and  John  afterward 
wished  to  call  down  fire  Tipon  a  hostile  Samaritan  village.  Peter 
was  quick  with  his  sword  when  his  Master  was  arrested  in  Geth- 
semane.  Simon  belonged  to  the  ''  zealot "  party,  which  had  in- 
spired some  of  the  bloodiest  insurrections  against  the  Roman  rule. 


18 

All  the  disciples  shared  the  current  Jewish  notion  that  the  Messiah 
would  crush  the  Eoman  power,  conquer  the  nations,  restore  the 
kingdom  of  David,  and  make  it  universal  by  military  force.  On 
hearing  that  Jesus's  kingdom  was  not  to  triumph  at  once,  and  by  the 
mere  preaching  of  the  word,  the  question  would  naturally  arise  in 
their  hearts,  "  What  are  we  to  do  to  destroy  the  evil  that  opposes 
and  secure  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom  after  the  word  shall  have 
been  tried  and  found  inadequate?  Shall  we  take  the  sword  to  de- 
stroy the  sinners  and  hostile  Gentiles?"  This  natural  question 
Jesus  anticipated  and  answered  in  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the 
field.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  to  triumph  through  military 
force  nor  is  violence  to  be  used  to  keep  the  world  good.  Christ's 
servants  are  to  carry  on  the  contest  with  evil  by  the  means  and 
methods  which  he  himself  used.  Beyond  that  the  removal  of  evil 
from  the  world  must  be  left  to  the  Son  of  man  to  whom  the  work 
of  judgment  has  been  committed  by  the  Father. 

Paul  and  Peter  were  only  making  an  application  of  this  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  when  they  charged  the  early  Christians  not  to  attempt 
physical  resistance  but  to  be  in  subjection  to  existing  governments. 

III.  Jesus  trained  a  body  of  disciples  and  sent  them  to  carry  on 
a  contest  against  the  devil  and  his  works.  He  gave  them  full  in- 
structions for  the  work,  but  said  nothing  of  military  power.  They 
were  to  preach  the  gospel,  heal  the  sick,  to  bear  witness  of  him, 
and  suffer  for  their  testimony,  and  to  do  these  things  with  impar- 
tial love  for  all  men.  In  the  beatitudes  given  at  the  time  he  chose 
the  twelve  apostles,  he  promised  them  that  the  meek,  the  peace- 
makers, and  those  who  bore  persecution  unresistingly,  should  in- 
herit the  earth,  be  known  as  God's  sons,  and  possess  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  The  military  virtues  had  no  beatitude  from  Jesus.  His 
disciples,  as  he  described,  commissioned  and  blessed  them,  are  men 
of  peace. 

These,  in  brief,  are  the  grounds  of  peace  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  are  fundamental  in  it.  Christian  peace  is  not  a  pre- 
carious inference  from  isolated  texts  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  an 
appendix  to  Christian  ethics,  but  it  inheres  in  the  very  nature  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  which  Christ  came  to  establish  on  earth. 

The  Chairman:  I  will  now  call  upon  Dr.  George  A.  Barton, 
of  Bryn  Mawr  College,  who  will  read  a  paper  upon  the  "  Elements 
of  Peace  Doctrine  in  the  Old  Testament." 


19 

ELEMENTS  OF  PEACK  DOCTRINE  IN  THE  OLD 

TESTAMENT. 

BY   GKORGE   A.   BARTON,   PH.D..   BRYN   MAWR  COLLEGE. 

With  reference  to  the  relation  whicli  the  Old  Testament  bears 
to  the  doctrine  of  international  peace  there  are  four  possible  atti- 
tudes of  mind: 

1.  We  may  take  the  ground  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  record 
of  a  divine  revelation,  that  it  exhibits  war  as  a  part  of  the  divine 
plan,  and  that,  therefore,  it  justifies  warfare  among  Christians. 
This  attitude  has  been  generally  taken  by  Christians  in  many  dif- 
ferent centuries.  It  has  its  advocates  yet.  It  has  served  to  flood 
the  Christian  world  with  wave  upon  wave  of  barbarism.  Although 
it  is  still  advocated  by  some  Christian  teachers,  it  is  too  supei-fi- 
cial  to  merit  refutation  in  a  company  like  this. 

2.  The  second  possible  position  is  in  part  identical  with  the 
preceding  and  in  part  the  antithesis  of  it.  It  holds  that  the  Old 
Testament  reeks  with  un-Christian  barbarism,  that  it  is  a  millstone 
about  the  neck  of  the  Church,  and  that  no  advance  can  be  made 
in  the  realization  of  the  Christian  ideal  of  peace  until  this  unwieldy 
impediment  is  cast  aside.  This  attitude  of  mind  is  as  superficial  as 
the  preceding.  It  is  produced  naturally  by  reaction  from  the  ex- 
travagant claims  of  those  who  advocate  the  first  position. 

3.  A  third  attitude  is  sometimes  taken.  It  is  said  that  the  vic- 
tories gained  by  Israel,  which  were  of  real  advantage  to  the  nation, 
were  not  the  result  of  war,  but  of  divine  interposition,  and  that 
large  military  establishments  were  not  only  contrary  to  the  com- 
mands of  God,  but  disastrous  to  the  political  prosperity  of  the  na- 
tion. 

This  position  would  be  comforting,  if  true,  but  unfortunately  it 
rests  upon  a  method  of  Old  Testament  study,  which  can  no  longer 
be  regarded  as  thorough.  Our  Old  Testament  historical  books 
were  compiled  and  edited  by  men  who  lived  just  at  the  period  when 
the  Hebrews  were  passing  from  a  nation  to  a  church.  These  narra- 
tives were  collected,  not  so  much  for  the  sake  of  history,  as  for  the 
religious  lesson  which  they  might  be  made  to  enforce.  Without 
doubt,  too,  the  nation  had  suffered  from  the  military  ambitions  of 
its  greatest  leaders.  Equally  undoubted  is  the  fact  that  there  was 
a  large  Providential  element  in  the  military  victories  won  by  their 
ancestors;  but  in  retelling  the  stories  of  these  to  enforce  a  religious 
point  of  view  the  Providential  element  was  heightened,  the  war- 
like element,  which  in  the  early  time  was  very  real,  fell  into  the 
background,  and  the  whole  perspective  was  innocently  and  uncon- 
sciously changed. 

Let  me  give  an  illustration.  In  the  sixth  chapter  of  Joshua 
two  different  accounts  of  the  taking  of  Jericho  are  woven  together. 
In  the  older  of  these  we  are  told  how  the  Hebrews  captured  the 
city  by  a  ruse.      They   quietly   marched  about  the  city  for  seven 


20 

days,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  appear  unable  to  attack  it,  thus  throw- 
ing the  inhabitants  off  their  guard,  and  when  the  garrison  least  ex- 
pected it  raised  a  great  shout,  and,  rushing  upon  it,  captured  the 
city.  The  deed  was  really  a  military  stratagem,  but  the  victory  was, 
like  all  victories,  ascribed  to  Jehovah,  the  God  of  battles.  The  vic- 
tory was  won  so  easily,  however,  that  it  was  ascribed  in  an  especial 
manner  to  the  interposition  of  God,  and  it  was  only  natural  that  in 
later  times  it  should  give  rise  to  traditions  in  which  the  Providen- 
tial element  overshadowed  the  other  entirely.  Indeed  it  is  not  im- 
possible for  such  a  point  of  view  to  be  taken  in  modern  times  about 
modern  events.  I  have  heard  of  a  Friend,  who  regards  the  signal 
victories  of  the  American  fleets  over  the  Spaniards,  in  the  war  of 
1898,  accomplished  as  they  were  with  almost  no  loss  of  life,  as  evi- 
dence that  America  was  as  much  the  chosen  instrument  for  the 
overthrow  of  Spanish  despotism  as  Israel  was  for  the  extermination 
of  the  Ganaanites,  and  that  God  fought  for  the  American  fleets  as 
he  did  for  Israel  of  old.  If  this  were  not  an  age  of  books  and  of 
critical  historical  study,  there  might  easily  grow  up  in  America  a 
very  unreal  tradition  about  that  war — a  tradition  in  which  the  ac- 
tual military  element,  which  we  so  much  regretted,  would  sink  out 
of  sight  altogether,  and  an  impression  prevail  that  it  was  deter- 
mined wholly  by  Providential  interpositions.  Obviously,  then,  if 
we  would  find  in  Israel's  history  valid  principles  which  may  be  ap- 
plied to  real  international  life  in  this  world,  we  must  adopt  a  less 
superficial  method  of  study. 

4.  A  fourth  attitude  is  possible.  We  may  recognize  that  the 
religion  of  Israel  was  the  Providential  preparation  for  Christianity, 
that  in  the  beginning  the  Hebrews  differed  little  from  their  neigh- 
bors and  kinsmen  either  in  religion  or  in  the  arts  of  life,  but  that 
as  time  advanced  they  saw  more  clearly  the  nature  of  God  and  their 
proper  relation  to  their  neighbors.  If  we  proceed  thus  we  shall  ex- 
pect their  religion  and  morals  to  be  crude  in  the  early  period,  but 
we  shall  expect,  as  we  approach  the  time  of  the  coming  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace,  to  discover  a  clearer  apprehension  of  those  great 
principles  which  should  make  war  forever  impossible. 

This  last  is  the  point  of  view  which  this  essay  is  an  endeavor  to 
set  forth,  though  obviously  in  the  time  at  my  disposal  the  proper 
treatment  of  the  subject  can  only  be  hinted  at. 

In  the  animal  world  warfare  and  struggle  seem  to  be  perfectly 
natural.  Biologists  teach  us  that  it  is  by  means  of  these  that  ani- 
mal life  has  been  pushed  for^vard  to  its  present  degree  of  perfec- 
tion. Man  is  from  one  standpoint  a  member  of  the  animal  king- 
dom. In  the  earlier  stages  of  his  development  he  has  necessarily 
been  pushed  forward  by  the  same  processes  which  have  moulded 
all  animal  life.  He  cannot  be  led  forward  by  the  lofty  ideals  which 
inspire  by  their  brightness  and  purity  until  he  can  appreciate  some- 
thing of  their  beauty  and  sulilimity.  Until  then,  lik<3  his  fellows  in 
the  animal  realm,  he  must  be  pushed  forward  by  the  blind  forces 


21 

of  stnifTiTle  and  survival.  To  discover  the  elements  of  a  peace  doc- 
trine in  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  discover  the  power  to  appre- 
ciate the  great  religious  trnths  on  which  it  rests.  Those  truths  are 
the  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  brotherhood  of  man.  Until  men 
have  clearly  understood  that  God  is  the  God  of  all  men,  and  that  it 
is  as  wrong  to  injure  a  stranger  as  a  brother,  because  both  are  the 
children  of  the  same  Father,  no  peace  doctrine  is  ])Ossible  to  them. 

Xow,  in  the  early  days  of  Israel's  national  life  the  necessary  re- 
ligious foundation  for  this  truth  had  not  been  laid.  Each  tribe,  or, 
at  the  most,  each  nation,  had  its  god.  Each  nation  thought  it 
must  worship  its  own  god,  but  it  in  no  wise  denied  the  reality  of 
the  gods  of  other  nations.  These  gods  were  conceived  as  larger 
men,  ready  to  fight  with  one  another,  or  to  over-reach  one  another 
in  all  the  ways  which  men  would  do.  This  applies  to  the  early  his- 
tory of  Israel  as  truly  as  to  that  of  other  ancient  peoples.  When 
David  was  temporarily  driven  from  his  native  land,  and  had  to  take 
refuge  in  Moab,  we  hear  him  complaining:  "  They  have  driven 
me  out  this  day  that  I  should  not  cleave  unto  the  inheritance  of 
Jehovah,  saying.  Go  serve  other  gods"  (1  Samuel  2G:  19).  Jeho- 
vah's power  was,  he  seemed  to  think,  limited  to  Palestine,  and, 
when  on  foreign  soil,  David  naturally  supposed  he  must  worship  a 
foreign  god.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  David  practiced  such 
barbarities  upon  conquered  enemies  (2  Samuel  13:  31).  From  his 
religious  point  of  view  these  enemies  had  no  rights.  Obviously  in 
such  an  age  the  peace  doctrine  could  find  no  root. 

In  Amos,  the  first  of  the  literary  prophets,  we  find  a  broader 
outlook,  both  as  regards  the  extent  of  God's  rule  over  the  nations, 
and  as  regards  the  barbarities  of  war.  He  perceived  that  Jehovah 
controlled  all  nations;  Jehovah  brought  the  Philistines  from  Caph- 
tor  and  the  Aramaeans  from  Kir,  as  well  as  Israel  from  Egypt 
(Amos  9:  7).  It  was  Amos,  too,  the  possessor  of  this  breadth  of  re- 
ligious vision,  who  condemned  that  violation  of  treaties,  that  bar- 
barity to  women,  and  that  disregard  of  the  sacredness  of  death, 
which  are  so  characteristic  of  war  (see  Amos  1:  9;  1:  13;  2:  1). 

It  takes,  in  any  age,  a  long  time  for  a  higher  ideal  to  win  its 
way,  and  that  was  true  of  Israel  as  well  as  of  others.  Isaiah  sang 
of  the  birth  of  the  "  Prince  of  peace,"  in  language  which  is  much 
obscured  in  our  common  versions  of  the  Bible,  but  which  is  so  en- 
shrined in  the  affections  of  the  Christian  world  that  one  hesitates 
to  disturb  it,  even  in  the  interest  of  truth.  "When  Isaiah's  lan- 
guage is  really  understood,  however,  it  differs  but  little  from  the 
hard  standards  of  the  age  of  war.  That  Prince,  as  Isaiah  conceived 
him,  was  to  be  a  "  wonderful  plotter,  a  very  god  of  a  warrior,  and 
a  father  of  booty "  before  he  was  "  Prince  of  peace."  In  other 
words  Isaiah's  conception  is  still  the  conception  of  a  conqueror; 
the  peace  which  this  passage  pictures  was  such  as  Kitchener  is  mak- 
ins  in  South  Africa. 


2^ 

Many  years  later  Isaiah  had  a  more  attractive  vision.  In  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  his  prophecy,  when  describing  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  he  sang  of  a  time  when — 

"  The  wolf  will  lodge  with  the  lamb, 
The  leopard  lie   down  with  the  kid, 
The  calf  and  the  young  lion  will  graze  together, 
And  a  little  child  will  lead  them." 

This  language  is  no  donbt  fignrative.  The  prophet  pictured 
under  these  animal  forms  the  way  in  which  human  passion  was  to 
become  harmelss.  It  is  not  clear,  however,  whether  his  thought  em- 
braced the  world  in  this  Utopia  of  peace,  or  whether  he  confined  it 
to  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  words  which  immediately  follow 
favor  the  latter  view. 

Such  religious  conceptions  as  those  of  Amos  were,  neverthe- 
less, bound  to  l^ear  fruit.  Under  the  influence  of  the  prophets  the 
old  laws  were  recast  and  king  Josiah  instituted  a  reform  on  their 
basis.  We  now  possess  this  work  in  our  book  of  Deuteronomy.  It 
is  characterized  by  a  large  humanitarian  element.  It  sought  to 
soften  the  rugged  features  of  the  hard  life  of  ancient  times.  It 
instituted  laws  in  behalf  of  the  poor,  in  behalf  of  slaves,  who  were 
usually  the  captives  taken  in  war,  and  even  in  behalf  of  animals.* 
In  its  treatment  of  war  itself  there  is  a  milder,  more  human  and 
reasonable  note  than  one  is  accustomed  to  find  in  antiquity  (see 
Deuteronomy  20,  and  cf.  Goldwin  Smith  in  Independent  of  Au- 
gust 22d,  1901,  p.  1959  ff.).  Of  the  Levitical  code  which  came  into 
its  present  form  even  later,  though  many  of  its  laws  are  old,  the 
same  may  also  be  said.f  If  that  code  seems  to  limit  the  sympa- 
thies of  Israel  at  times  hj  enforcing  kindness  towards  members  of 
that  race  particularly,  it  also  commanded  the  Hebrew  to  love  the 
resident  alien  as  himself  (Leviticus  19:  17,  18).  When  we  remem- 
ber that  the  resident  alien  was  usually  a  captive  of  war,  we  can  see 
how  beneficently  the  teaching  of  prophets  like  Amos  was  taking  ef- 
fect. The  idea  that  there  was  but  one  God  and  He  the  God  of  all 
men,  was  producing  a  new  conception  of  humanity  fatal  to  the 
spirit  of  war. 

In  no  book  of  the  Old  Testament  does  this  leavening  doctrine, 
that  God  cares  for  all  men,  and  its  corollary,  that  mercy  is  due  to 
all,  shine  out  more  clearly  than  in  the  book  of  Jonah,  but  we  have 
been  so  occupied  in  quarreling  about  Jonah's  whale  that  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  message  of  the  book  has  escaped  us.  The  book  was 
written  to  enforce  the  great  truths  that  God's  care  extends  to  all 
men,  that  he  chose  Israel  not  for  her  own  sake  merely.  Init  to  bear 
his  message  of  warning,  of  righteousness,  and  of  mercy  to  all  men. 

*See  Kent's  "Humanitarian  Element    in    the    Old    Testament    Legisla- 
tion," Biblical  World,  October,  1901. 

t  See  Kent,  in  Biblical  World  for   NOvomher.    1!)01. 


23 

and  that  even  the  worst  of  Israel's  enemies  may  find  mercy  with 
God  and  become  his  people.  The  book  of  Jonah  is  a  missionary 
tract.  The  kindhness  of  God  extends  to  all  nations;  the  spirit  of 
helpful  sympathy  should  prevail  toward  them  in  the  hearts  of  his 
worshipers — this  is  the  message  of  this  unique  book,  and  it  is  a 
message  calculated  to  extirpate  the  spirit  of  selfishness  and  nar- 
rowness from  which  all  war  springs. 

The  climax  of  Old  Testament  thought  in  this  respect  is  reached 
in  that  little  prophecy,  found  both  in  the  second  chapter  of  Isaiah 
and  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Micah,  the  origin  of  which  is  a  puz- 
zle. Was  it  composed  by  Isaiah,  by  Micah,  or  by  some  unknown 
prophet?  Perhaps  the  latter  is  the  correct  view.  From  this  un- 
known seer  it  may  have  been  introduced  by  editors  into  the  posi- 
tions in  the  books  of  Isaiah  and  Micah,  where  it  now  stands.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  in  its  inspired  utterance  we  have  for  the  first  time 
an  adequate  expression  of  what  a  real  monotheism  means  for  the 
world.  "  The  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established  in 
the  top  of  the  mountain  and  exalted  above  the  hills.  Many  nations 
shall  give  him  their  allegiance;  his  word  shall  rule  them;  he  shall 
judge  between  many  peoples  and  decide  concerning  strong  nations 
afar  off;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and  their 
spears  into  pruning  hooks;  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against 
nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more."  One  God  for  all 
nations,  hence  one  brotherhood  among  men,  and  a  universal  peace 
on  earth.  This  is  the  only  logical  view  for  a  monotheist,  and  is  the 
inevitable  result  of  a  belief  in  one  God.  Such  is  the  strength  of 
old  custom,  especially  of  custom  consecrated  by  religious  sanction 
and  rooted  in  human  passion,  that  this  prophetic  vision  did  not 
make  a  deep  impression  on  the  prophets'  contemporaries;  but  nev- 
ertheless the  beautiful  picture  of  international  amity,  clearly  drawn 
against  the  dark  background  of  a  savage  antiquity,  anticipated  by 
two  millenniums  the  vision  of  our  Whittier,  who  sang: 

"  Ea'II  shall  cease  and  Violence  pass  away, 
And  the  tired  world  breathe  free  through  a  long  Sabbath  day." 

Viewed  in  the  manner  here  indicated,  the  Old  Testament 
neither  sanctions  war  nor  is  a  millstone  about  the  neck  of  Chris- 
tianity, nor  is  it  the  record  of  a  people  who  lived  in  a  world  so  un- 
real that  it  can  teach  us  no  practical  lesson.  It  affords  a  basis  for 
the  peace  doctrine,  both  because  it  exhibits  the  fact  that  war 
springs  from  the  animal  side  of  human  nature,  and  is  fostered  only 
by  a  conception  of  God  so  limited  as  to  be  but  little  removed  from 
heathenism;  and  also  because  it  reveals  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of 
monotheism  cannot  be  really  held  without  creating  in  men's  minds 
an  abhorrence  of  the  barbarities  of  war,  and  without  inspiring 
visions  of  a  universal  peace.  The  former  element,  though  pain- 
fully apparent,  is  a  waning  or  diminishing  element;  the  latter,  as 
revelation  in  its  progress  nears  the  Central  Figure  in  human  his- 
tory, clearly  appears  as  the  increasing  and  triumphant  element. 


24 

The  Chairman:  The  next  paper,  entitled  "The  Failure  of 
the  Christian  Church  in  Eegard  to  Peace  Principles,"  is  by  Mary 
Chawner  Woody,  of  Winston-Salem,  N.  C,  who  will  now  read  it. 

THE   FAIIiURE   OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE 
PAST   IN   REGARD   TO   PEACE   PRINCIPLES. 

BY  MART  CHAWJfER  WOODT,  WINSTON-SALEM,  N.  C. 

It  needs  no  argument  or  incident  to  show  the  great  blessing 
which  the  church  has  been  to  the  world — even  in  time  of  war;  but 
the  signal  failure  of  the  church  to  fill  its  mission  of  peace  is  har- 
rowing in  the  extreme. 

The  Prince  of  Peace  came  in  an  era  of  peace  to  establish  a  king- 
dom of  peace  under  the  reign  of  love.  There  had  been  in  the  Ro- 
man Empire  alone  644  years  of  constant  war — from  Tullius  Hos- 
tilius  to  Augustus  Caesar — with  only  six  years  of  peace.  But  now 
the  temple  of  Janus  was  closed,  and  at  the  advent  of  Jesus  the  shep- 
herds heard  the  anthem  of  the  angels,  "  On  earth  peace,  goodwill  to 
men." 

The  blessed  Saviour  taught  his  philosophy  of  love  to  his 
chosen  followers,  established  his  kingdom  in  the  midst  of  the  na- 
tions, and  plainly  stated  the  practical  application  of  his  principles. 
His  disciples  were  slow  to  comprehend  the  force  of  love,  and  on 
slight  provocation  desired  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  on  their 
enemies.  Even  at  the  last  of  the  three  years  of  constant  teaching 
they  misunderstood  the  figurative  language  and  thought  to  rule  by 
physical  force.  Then  Jesus  gave  to  the  leader  the  plain  words, 
"  Put  up  thy  sword,  for  all  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish 
with  the  sword";  and  then  an  example  of  tenderness  before  the 
eyes  of  the  little  church  should  have  taught  his  followers  for  all 
time  that  the  human  body  was  not  to  be  mutilated  and  mangled 
with  implements  of  war.  As  the  soldiers  were  binding  him,  at  his 
words,  "  Suffer  ye  thus  far,"  the  restoring  band  was  loosed  a  mo- 
ment until  it  could  reach  the  wounded  ear  of  Malchus  and  touch  it 
back  to  health.  Previously  that  evening,  as  Jesus  closed  his  in- 
struction to  his  followers  on  close  fellowship  with  himself,  he  left 
the  legacy  of  peace — forgotten  in  his  very  presence. 

This  peace  is  first  in  the  child  of  God.  "  It  is  a  triple  peace  ''— 
peace  with  God,  peace  with  our  neighbor,  peace  with  ourselves. 
"  It  has  a  wider  scope  than  the  individual."  It  is  the  effect  of  right- 
eousness that  shall  be  peace.  Cardinal  Gibbons  very  truly  inter- 
prets the  gospel  when  he  says:  "  God  is  the  God  of  peace  to  the 
individual,  the  Father  of  peace  to  the  family,  and  the  Prince  of 
Peace  to  society." 

The  very  force  of  the  law  of  love  will  lead  into  the  kingdom  of 
peace.  The  coals  of  fire  will  melt  the  stony  heart.  Love  is  the 
most  potent  killing  agency  ever  applied — cold  steel  and  "  reeking 
tube  "  are  not  to  be  compared  with  it. 


25 

If  the  Church  was  not  to  affect  society  why  did  Jesiis  say  to  that 
little  company,  "  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world  "  ?  Why  did  lie 
use  that  closer  metaphor,  "  Yc  are  the  salt  of  the  earth  "  ? 

This  was  a  prophecy  that  his  chosen  followers  were  to  modify 
the  whole  world,  that  the  principles  enunciated  by  him  would  af- 
fect every  institution  they  reached. 

It  has  been  wonderfully  fulfilled.  Though  under  the  light  of 
the  gospel  there  are  many  thousands  who  have  not  accepted  iti 
truth,  yet  their  whole  character  is  modified  by  it.  There  can  be  lit- 
tle comparison  between  the  unbeliever  who  has  been  brought  up 
among  Christian  people  and  the  heathen  who  has  never  come  in 
touch  with  the  salt  of  the  earth.  But  it  is  to  be  shown  here  where- 
in the  salt  in  this  kingdom  of  peace  has  failed  and  so  been  trodden 
under  foot  of  men. 

The  principles  of  the  Prince  and  the  anthem  of  the  angels  and 
the  legacy  left  have  not  been  utilized  in  the  church,  and  so  it  has 
lost  its  pacific  element.  It  has  yielded  to  a  lower  law,  and  thus 
broken  a  higher  and  more  effectual. 

If  an  ear  of  the  enemy  could  not  be  cut  off  in  defence  of  the 
Son  of  God,  where  is  a  sufficient  cause  for  Christians  ever  to  as- 
sume the  defensive?  But  the  Christian  Church  has  brought  over 
from  the  old  dispensation  an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth, 
and  has  attempted  to  engraft  into  the  broad  spreading  tree  of  the 
gospel  the  seclusive,  exclusive  exotic  of  the  Jewish  religion.  This 
has  wrought  untold  mischief. 

The  Church  seems  never  ready,  when  a  crisis  comes,  to  meet  it, 
because  it  has  failed  previously  in  not  teaching  the  precepts  of  the 
gospel,  "  line  upon  line."  ''  In  time  of  peace  prepare  for  war  "  has 
been  faithfully  observed,  and  so  a  Christian  nation,  filled  w^ith 
Christian  churches,  rushes  into  war  on  the  slightest  pretext,  and 
the  dove  of  peace  cannot  then  be  heard  above  the  roaring  artillery. 
If  the  salt  of  the  earth  would  keep  its  savor,  every  Christian  nation 
would  be  so  saved  by  it  that  the  folly  of  war  would  be  impossible. 
It  is  the  business  of  the  Church  to  make  people  kind  and  just  and 
wise,  so  that  "  kings  would  not  play  at  the  game  of  war." 

Dr.  Chalmers  says  it  is  only  by  the  extension  of  Christian  prin- 
ciples among  the  people  of  the  earth  that  the  atrocities  of  war  will 
at  length  be  swept  away.  If  this  is  true  the  failure  is  apparent;  the 
Bible  has  not  been  sufficiently  taught,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  has 
been  hid  as  out  of  date.  The  gospel  of  love  has  been  pushed  aside 
as  impracticable. 

A  leaflet  issued  by  the  Howard  Association  says:  "The  regi- 
cides perpetrated  by  Italian  and  other  anarchists,  the  assassinations 
and  conspiracies  of  nihilists,  the  vendettas  of  Southern  Europe,  and 
the  gross  municipal  disorders  and  corruptions  of  some  of  our 
American  cities  have  all  been  especially  characteristic  of  sections 
of  people  who,  even  if  in  some  cases  making  a  profession  of  religion, 
have  really  never  been  habituated  or  inclined  to  an  acquaintance 


26 

with  the  supreme  truths  of  God  and  eternity  as  revealed  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures."  Professor  Huxley  is  quoted  as  saying:  "  By  the  study 
of  what  other  book  could  children  be  so  humanized?  .  .  .  No- 
where else  is  the  fundamental  truth  as  strongly  laid  down  that  the 
welfare  of  the  state  depends  upon  the  righteousness  of  the  citizen." 
"  The  Bible  is  the  most  democratic  book  in  the  world."  That  many 
grow  up  in  our  Christian  country  utterly  ignorant  of  the  Bible  lies 
at  the  door  of  the  Church.  All  quarters  where  there  are  disturbing 
elements,  or  likely  to  be,  the  Bible  should  be  applied  by  all  pos- 
sible means  more  bountifully  than  would  the  health  officer  throw 
salt  into  a  cesspool  that  breeds  diphtheria.  Take  the  late  assassin, 
for  instance.  The  Christian  Church  is  responsible  for  such  a  char- 
acter being  developed  in  our  midst.  The  assassin  had  strong  con- 
victions and  a  courage  equal  to  his  convictions.  But  that  his  con- 
victions were  wrong  is  a  stigma  on  our  instruction.  If  the  pene- 
trating gospel  of  love  had  been  as  faithfully  applied  to  his  mind  as 
were  anarchistic  views  it  is  altogether  probable  that  right  principles 
would  have  been  maintained  with  even  greater  tenacity.  But  be- 
hold the  attitude  of  the  church;  it  is  vividly  given  in  a  cartoon  of 
a  minister  and  an  anarchist  side  by  side,  the  same  spirit  in  both. 
The  anarchist  exclaims,  "  Kill  all  rulers  "  ;  the  minister  exclaims, 
"  Lynch  all  anarchists."  When  will  these  bewildered  people  be- 
lieve the  gospel  of  love? 

A  modified  form  of  Christianity  has  been  taught  and  not  the 
gospel  pure  and  simple.  The  Church  has  so  often  given  man's  idea 
of  Christianity  and  not  God's  thought. 

The  fundamental  doctrine  of  love  to  God  and  faith  in  man  has 
not  its  full  application.  From  the  beginning  the  Church  has  con- 
tinued daily  to  say  "  Our  Father,"  but  has  not  yet  learned  that  if 
we  say  "  Our  Father  "  we  must  say  also  "  My  brother."  For  "  He 
hath  made  of  one  blood  all  the  nations  of  men  to  dwell  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth."  Until  the  Church  teaches  the  brotherhood  of 
man  there  can  never  be  the  federation  of  the  world.  The  beloved 
disciple  gives  the  gauge  by  which  every  Christian  is  to  be  measured. 
"  If  a  man  say,  I  love  God,  and  hateth  his  brother,  he  is  a  liar;  for 
he  that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  how  can  he  love 
God  whom  he  hath  not  seen?  "  How  can  he  say,  "  Our  Father  "  if  he 
does  not  say  "  My  brother  "  ?  But  the  writer  continues:  "  This 
commandment  have  we  from  him,  that  he  that  loveth  God  love 
his  brother  also."  This  means  the  Filipinos,  the  Boers,  the  ne- 
groes, the  Indians  and  the  Chinese. 

The  Church  was  to  be  a  light  to  the  world,  but  it  has  wasted 
much  of  its  force  in  controversy.  "  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world." 
But  how  could  the  Church  throw  light  upon  the  world  when  quar- 
reling about  the  light  itself?  How  could  the  Church  win  the  dark- 
minded  when  it  did  not  recognize  him  as  a  brother? 

When  the  Dutch  made  their  settlement  in  South  Africa  it  is 
said  that  over  their  church  door  was  this  mongrel  legend:    ''  Dogs 


27 

and  Hottentots  keep  out."  In  these  diminutive  people  they  could 
see  no  trace  of  kinship.  But  under  the  brotherly  care  of  the  Mora- 
vian missionaries  these  same  Hottentots  received  the  gospel,  and 
two  years  ago,  at  the  Moravian  Synod  in  Ilerrn  Ilutt,  this  same 
Hottentot  mission  was  transferred  to  the  list  of  self-supporting 
churches.  We  admire  the  piety  and  persistence  of  the  Boers,  but 
lament  their  forgetting  that  the  grace  of  God  which  bringeth  sal- 
vation to  all  men  hath  appeared. 

How  could  the  Church  invite  the  world  to  a  peace  meeting  when 
at  strife  within  itself  over  possible  renderings  and  interpretations 
and  modifieations?  Filled  with  this  enmity  the  Church  is  shorn  of 
its  strength.  H  the  prayer  of  .Jesus  "  that  they  may  be  one  "  were 
fulfilled,  what  power  the  united  Church  would  now  have  in  averting 
any  storm  cloud  that  might  be  gathering  in  all  Christendom.  She 
might  also  be  an  arbiter  for  heathen  countries.  Instead,  the  re- 
sponsibility of  many  wars  lies  at  the  door  of  the  Church.  For  in- 
stance, our  own  Civil  War  came  only  after  the  Church  had  carried 
the  strife  so  far  as  to  split  in  two  itself;  then  it  was  easy  for  the 
state  to  follow.  The  Church  had  failed  to  maintain  the  conditions 
of  peace.  Though  the  Catholic  Church  has  as  one  of  its  principles, 
"  The  church  shuns  the  shedding  of  blood,"  yet  the  jSTew  York 
Joxirnal  is  authority  for  these  words  from  the  Pope  to  the  Queen 
of  Spain  during  the  conflict  in  Cuba:  "  We  repeat  with  all  our 
heart,  it  is  our  wish  that  God  may  give  victory  to  the  Spanish  arms 
in  favor  of  your  throne  and  the  Catholic  nation."  The  proper 
whole-hearted  wish  for  the  highest  dignitary  in  the  Church  should 
have  been  for  the  success  of  God  and  humanity. 

Wlien  matters  came  to  a  crisis  the  salutation  from  the  Prot- 
estant Church  in  America  was  in  the  same  spirit  as  that  of  the 
Pope;  so  war  with  Spain  was  inevitable.  If  vessels  laden  with  sup- 
plies to  relieve  suffering  from  the  hand  of  Christian  people  of  the 
United  States  had  waited  in  Cuban  waters  instead  of  a  man-of- 
war,  it  would  not  have  been  a  menace  to  Spain. 

By  inflammatory  sermons  and  bloodthirsty  journalism  both 
church  and  state  were  carried  off  their  base,  though  Fitzhugh  Lee, 
our  consul,  sent  a  cablegram  that  it  would  not  do  to  send  a  man- 
of-war  to  the  scene  of  conflict;  but  the  Maine  went  and  slipped  into 
Havana  harbor,  and  what  has  followed?  And  who  can  see  the  end 
of  mangled  forms  and  garments  rolled  in  blood?  The  gospel  of 
love  is  shut  out  by  stronger  walls  than  heathen  superstitions  from 
the  drink-maddened  Filipino. 

What  is  a  little  shout  of  glory  for  some  name  and  the  ques- 
tionable honor  of  a  rear-admiral?  The  mother  of  Worth  Bagley 
gave  the  true  sentiment  when  the  news  of  the  slaughter  of  the 
young  ensign  reached  her  Kaleigh  home,  and  she  exclaimed,  ''  Tell 
them  to  stop  fighting!  I  want  no  Spanish  mother's  heart  to  bleed 
as  mine  does  to-day." 

At  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  ceLtury,    under   the  leadership 


28 

of  the  head  of  the  Greek  Church,  Eussia.  Catholic  Austria  and 
Protestant  Prussia  partitioned  out  Poland.  The  freedom-loving 
Polanders,  with  no  country  to  defend,  have  come  to  look  upon 
all  rulers  as  tyrants.  The  failure  of  the  Church  at  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century  has  borne  its  legitimate  fruit  at  the  close  of 
the  nineteenth.  What  a  century  plant,  with  its  deadly  bloom  in 
every  civilized  country  on  the  globe!  Because  the  Church  has 
blessed  and  shouted  over  the  armies,  God's  law.  "  he  appointed 
to  the  nations  their  bounds,"  has  been  broken,  and  a  people  with- 
out a  country  have  lost  their  confidence  in  the  Church  and  have 
become  a  deadly  foe  to  every  ruler.  In  the  American  Revolution 
Kosciuszko  drew  his  sword  for  the  freedom  of  America.  In  1901 
a  Polander  takes  the  life  of  its  President. 

The  Christian  Church  quotes  with  joy  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah, 
but  thinks  them  only  ideal  and  impracticable.  The  great  failure 
of  the  Church  in  the  past  has  been  that  it  has  not  recognized  that 
under  the  leadership  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  men  are  to  work 
out  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy.  The  mere  existence  of  these 
prophecies  upon  the  inspired  page  is  a  condemnation  of  war  and  a 
command  to  the  Christian  Church  to  work  for  their  fulfilhnent. 

A  recent  example  of  the  success  of  the  gospel  plan  has  been 
given  us  from  the  far-away  New  Hebrides,  whose  four  thousand 
men  were  only  lately  turned  from  cannibalism.  The  converted 
chief  went  with  Frank  Paton,  the  son  of  the  veteran  missionary, 
to  establish  a  mission  in  one  of  the  villages.  He  was  met  with 
loaded  rifles,  and  was  shot  in  protecting  Mr.  Paton.  In  his  beau- 
tiful Christian  death  the  chief  insisted  that  no  revenge  should  be 
taken  for  his  mortal  wound.  What  was  the  result?  The  evan- 
gelist says  that  this  kind  of  a  revenge  opened  the  way  for  a  band 
of  the  followers  of  their  martyred  chief  to  go  two  days  of  each 
week  to  preach  Christ  in  the  villages.  What  a  contrast  to  the 
bands  sent  by  Christian  America  to  Christianize  the  Filipinos! 

Cardinal  Gibbons,  in  a  sermon  at  the  beginning  of  the  century, 
said,  "  The  teachings  of  the  gospel  form  the  only  basis  of  peace  for 
the  rulers  of  the  earth.  All  the  arts  and  resources  of  diplomacy 
will  be  in  vain;  all  the  courts  of  arbitration  and  peace  conferences 
that  ever  shall  assemble  will  avail  but  little  .  .  .  unless  their  decis- 
ions are  guided  and  framed  under  the  invocation  of  the  Lord  of 
Peace,  who  sits  enthroned  on  the  cross." 

"  God  grant  that  the  new  century  may  inaugurate  a  new  era 
of  people  fulfilling  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah."  In  a  recent  sermon, 
Pastor  Sailliens,  of  Paris,  said:  "To  bring  back  the  church  at 
once  to  apostolic  simplicity,  humility  and  spirituality  seems  an  im- 
possible task.  ...  As  long  as  the  churches  adorn  the  arms  of  war- 
riors with  consecrated  laurels  and  sing  Te  Deums  in  honor  of  their 
victories,  war  will  continue  and  men  will  kill  each  other  in  good 
conscience,  thinking  they  have  the  approbation  of  heaven." 


29 

The  Chairh[ax:  We  have  tliree-qiiarters  of  an  hour  now  in 
which  to  discuss  the  three  most  interesting  and  valuable  papers  you 
have  heard.  I  shall  first  introduce  Dr.  Rufus  M.  Jones,  of  Haver- 
ford  College,  who  will  open  the  discussion. 

Rufus  ;M.  Jones:  I  suppose  most  of  us  are  too  old  to  remem- 
ber how  it  feels  to  grow  up,  and  how  hard  and  slow  it  is  to  get  over 
certain  things  that  are  in  the  grain  to  start  with.  We  don't  remem- 
ber, perhaps,  how  easy  it  is  for  the  child  to  have  the  spirit  of  fight 
spring  up,  and  how  slow  the  process  is  of  getting  rid  of  it  entii'ely. 
Well,  now,  being  from  observation  familiar  with  the  growth  of  life 
from  childhood  to  maturity,  and  the  changes  which  it  brings,  we 
ought  to  expect  that  some  such  thing  would  appear  in  the  progress 
of  the  race  from  childhood  to  maturity,  and  that  is  what  we  find. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  sadder  note  coming  from  the  early  period 
in  the  history  of  the  race  tlian  that  almost  earliest  note  in  the  Old 
Testament.  You  remember  a  man  named  Lamech,  who  invented 
a  weapon.  He  is  the  first  man,  or  among  the  first,  who  used  his 
head  to  invent  something.  The  inventive  power  of  man  is  one  of 
the  greatest  which  God  placed  in  the  world.  Well,  this  man 
Lamech,  as  soon  as  he  invents  his  weapon,  as  soon  as  he  gets  an  in- 
strument through  the  exercise  of  this  inventive  power,  begins  to 
glory  in  it.  He  does  not  glory  because  he  can  thereby  advance  the 
world's  interests  and  make  it  better.  Here  is  what  he  says  to  his 
two  wives,  in  the  little  poem — one  of  the  earliest  notes  of  song — im- 
bedded there  in  the  early  part  of  the  Book  of  Genesis: 

Adafi  and  Zillali,  liear  my  voice; 

Ye  vives  of  Lamecli,  hearken  unto  my  speecfi: 

For  1  have  slain  a  man  for  wounding  me, 

And  a  young  man  for  bruising  me; 

If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold, 

Truly  Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold. 

That  is  the  sort  of  man  you  have  to  start  with.  There  are  a 
good  many  pages  in  the  Book  we  read  and  love,  through  which  we 
have  come  to  the  great  truths  of  God  and  of  human  life,  and  you 
have  this  seventy-times-seven  repeated  later  in  another  strain.  "How 
many  times  shall  I  forgive  the  man  who  hurts  me?"  a  disciple  asked. 
""  Seven  times?  That  is  what  we  have  been  told."  "  I  say  unto  you, 
not  seven  times,  but  seventy  times  seven,"  was  the  answer.  There 
jou  have  the  forgiving  spirit  lifted  to  an  indefinite  height,  because 
the  words  are  indefinite  words.  Thus  you  pass  along  from  the 
spirit  of  revenge,  the  spirit  that  breathes  through  the  man  who  in- 
vents his  first  weapon,  along  to  the  spirit  of  that  Personality  who 
came  to  show  us  what  life  really  means  and  what  spirit  should  pre- 
vail in  a  human  being.  When  two  of  his  pupils  came  to  the  Mas- 
ter and  called  His  attention  to  the  fact  that  when  Elijah  had  diffi- 
culties with  some  people,  he  called  down  fire  from  heaven  and  got 
rid  of  them,  and  said:    "  Is  not  this  a  similar  case?    Shall  we  not 


30 

! 

call  down  fire?"  he  replied:  "You  know  not  what  spirit  you 
have.  We  are  not  living  under  the  spirit  of  Elijah;  we  have  passed 
away  from  that.  You  do  not  seem  to  know  what  time  you  are  liv- 
ing in;  you  do  not  seem  to  realize  at  all  the  new  idea  of  life." 

We  have  learned  in  our  every-day  life  and  in  what  we  read,  and 
this  last  paper  this  morning  has  recalled  it  to  us,  how  continuously 
the  spirit  of  the  old  time,  the  spirit  of  Lamech  and  of  Elijah,  keeps 
its  hold  on  men,  and  goes  on,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  warmer 
waters  of  the  Gulf  Stream  are  slowly  flooding  the  world. 

Two  great  figures  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Oliver  Cromwell 
and  George  Eox,  were  diametrically  opposite  characters.  You  see 
one  of  them  going  into  great  battles.  Shouting  the  Psalms,  he  and 
his  men  called  on  God  to  destroy  enemies.  You  find  the  other  go- 
ing up  and  down  among  men  taking  the  buffets,  the  scorn  and  the 
abuse  of  men  and  saying,  "  I  am  living  in  the  virtue  of  that  life  and 
power  which  does  away  with  the  occasion  for  all  war."  That  is 
the  other  spirit.  That  very  idea,  however,  is  most  beautifully 
brought  out  in  those  very  Psalms  that  Cromwell  used  to  shout  as  he 
went  to  battle.  This  old  poet,  when  he  was  lifting  up  the  type  of 
life  that  ought  to  prevail,  said  about  it:  "  Eighteousness  and  peace 
have  kissed  each  other."  There  never  will  be  any  permanent  peace 
in  the  world  until  just  that  dream  of  the  old  Hebrew  poet  is  real- 
ized; just  as  fast  as  righteousness  prevails  peace  prevails;  they  are 
linked  together;  they  are  bound  forever  in  one  whole.  We  must 
learn  that  we  have  to  treat  men  as  brothers;  that  every  man  is  to 
be  treated  as  though  he  were  our  other  self.  We  must  lift  every  man 
up  to  our  own  plane,  and  whenever  we  come  to  the  point  where  that 
sort  of  righteousness  permeates  society  peace  will  come  with  it. 
Righteousness  and  peace  always  will  kiss  each  other.  They  belong 
together. 

The  Chairman:  The  subject  is  now  open  for  general  discus- 
sion by  the  Conference. 

Davis  Furnas:  I  have  been  interested  in  the  papers  that 
have  been  read,  and  have  enjoyed  them.  I  fear,  however,  that  you 
will  set  me  down  as  one  of  the  ignorant  old  fogies.  I  was  educated 
to  believe  that  Friends  had  no  place  in  military  organizations,  nor 
among  military  men.  Now,  I  have  been  discouraged  sometimes 
when  I  have  heard  of  ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  min- 
isters in  the  Society  of  Friends,  making  war  speeches  on  Decora- 
tion Day.  We  may  make  all  the  profession  we  please;  it  is  not  the 
profession  that  brings  about  an  object,  biit  it  is  the  doing  of  the 
thing  that  we  profess.  When  we  profess  to  be  members  of  Christ's 
kingdom  of  peace  and  go  around  making  war  speeches  for  popular- 
ity's sake,  we  shall  not  accomplish  much  in  the  promotion  of  peace. 
Our  ministers  ought  to  stand  forth  in  the  love  of  Christ  and  pro- 
claim nothing  but  peace  on  earth  and  goodwill  to  men. 


31 

William  G.  Hubbard:  If  the  Chair  please,  I  wish  just  to  set 
my  testimony  to  the  hist  paper  that  we  listened  to.  While  the 
others  were  good,  it  seems  to  me  that  probably  that  is  one  of  the 
most  important  that  we  shall  have. 

I  have  had  a  good  deal  of  contact  with  the  ministers  of  different 
denominations,  and  with  churches,  and  I  feel  very  keenly  the  force 
of  the  charges  of  inconsistency  brought  against  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ.  When  I  was  a  student  in  college  I  listened  to  a 
man  that  I  had  learned  to  love  for  his  devoutness.  On  one  occasion, 
when  he  was  making  a  public  address,  I  was  thoroughly  shocked  to 
hear  him  say:  "■  A  rebel  has  no  right  except  the  right  to  six  feet  of 
earth  with  a  bullet  in  his  heart."  We  know  how  many  editorials 
have  been  written  in  some  of  the  leading  papers,  and  often  in  re- 
ligious papers,  speaking  in  the  most  approving  terms  of  war.  Now 
it  seems  to  me — and  I  have  felt  this  a  great  many  times  in  my  work 
— that  we  have  not  done  our  full  duty  as  believers  in  the  doctrine 
of  peace,  not  to  have  brought  this  doctrine  more  to  tlie  attention  of 
the  various  denominations  throughout  the  country.  When  I  ad- 
dressed at  one  time  a  great  educational  institution  in  one  of  the 
Western  States,  the  president  of  the  institution  and  the  president 
of  the  board  of  directors  both  came  on  to  the  platform,  at  the  close 
of  the  meeting,  and  said:  "  That  is  the  first  address  on  peace  I 
have  ever  heard."  I  have  heard  that  remark  made  by  educators  in 
Western  institutions  probably  a  score  of  times.  The  pastor  of  one 
of  the  large  churches  in  Cleveland  said  to  his  congregation,  at  the 
close  of  one  of  my  addresses,  "  I  think  you  must  have  been  deeply 
interested  in  this  presentation.  It  is  the  first  time  I  have  ever  heard 
a  sermon  on  peace."  The  man  had  been  preaching  the  Gospel  of 
the  Prince  of  Peace  for  thirty  years  and  yet  had  never  heard  a  dis- 
course on  that  subject  before!  I  presume  there  are  a  thousand 
schools  of  higher  grade  in  the  United  States  where  no  address  has 
ever  been  given  along  this  line.  I  simply  want  to  raise  this  ques- 
tion, not  to  discuss  it:  Are  we  doing  our  duty?  A  hundred  thou- 
sand Friends,  probably,  are  represented  here.  Ought  it  to  be  pos- 
sible that  a  man  of  general  intelligence  and  reading  should  be  able 
to  say,  "  I  have  never  heard  an  address  on  peace?  "  Will  this  Con- 
ference plan  to  disseminate  more  generally  these  arguments  that 
are  being  produced  here,  and  bring  the  matter  more  strikingly  and 
more  thoroughly  to  the  attention  of  the  Christian  people  of  the 
United  States? 

Allen  Flitcraft:  I  have  been  interested  in  each  of  the  pa- 
pers, and  also  in  the  discussion.  With  the  first  paper  we  all  agree. 
All  true,  vital  Christians,  it  seems  to  me,  must  endorse  what  is  in 
it.  In  reference  to  the  second,  I  know  that  those  who  are  not  really 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and  are  disposed  to  encourage  war,  will 
try  to  support  their  views  by  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  as 
I  read  the  Old  Testament,  and  get  into  the  spirit  of  the  inspired 


32 

writers  who  produced  it,  I  find  that  it  is  in  favor  of  peace.  I  have 
risen  merely  to  say  this:  Jesus  Clirist  had  not  anything  directly  to 
do  with  philosophy,  science  or  government;  neither,  I  believe,  had 
His  apostles.  Their  mission  was  of  a  spiritual  character.  If  the 
professing  Christians  of  to-day  were  living  in  the  spirit  and  advo- 
cating the  kingdom  of  Christ  more  than  the  kingdoms  of  this 
world,  as  did  the  early  Christians,  our  governments  would  be  far  in 
advance  of  what  they  are.  While  we  are  reflecting  upon  the  church 
and  the  ministers  of  other  denominations — and  perhaps  we  can 
truthfully  do  it — how  are  we  living  ourselves?  The  principles  of 
Christ  will  keep  others  as  well  as  ministers  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gos- 
pel. While  we  look  to  ministers  and  expect  their  light  to  shine 
more  brightly  if  possible  than  that  of  others,  who  of  us  are  entirely 
clear?  Are  we  doing  our  duty  as  individual  members  of  the  So- 
ciety of  Friends? 

Again,  a  word  in  reference  to  our  government.  Our  govern- 
ment is,  unfortunately,  not  founded  upon  the  principles  of  peace, 
upon  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  present  condition  of  peo- 
ple, it  would  probably  not  succeed,  if  it  were  so  founded.  It  is  not 
our  business  to  endeavor  to  tie  the  hands  of  those  that  may  be  in 
authority  at  the  head  of  the  nation,  but  to  do  our  part  in  having 
the  condition  of  our  hearts  right.  Then  we  shall  be  instrumental  in 
leading  others  to  Christ,  and  in  hastening  the  day  when  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  fill  the  earth  as  the  waters  cov- 
er the  sea.  Then  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  have  governments 
founded  upon  force. 

Anna  Beaithwaite  Thomas:  Why  is  it  that  the  church  has 
failed  to  grasp  these  principles  of  peace?  WTiy  is  it  that  good  men 
to-day  support  war?  I  do  not  think  it  is  from  bad  principles.  The 
ministers  who  have  preached  and  written  in  favor  of  war  in  South 
Africa  and  in  the  Philippine  Islands  have  not  done  so,  I  think, 
from  a  desire  of  glory,  or  for  punishing  enemies,  or  for  aggrandize- 
ment. They  have  done  it  because  they  thought  that  the  cause  of 
righteousness  and  truth  would  through  these  wars  be  advanced  in 
the  world;  that  the  victory  of  England  in  South  Africa  and  the  vic- 
tory of  America  in  the  Pliilippine  Islands  would  be  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

One  reason  why  the}^  have  believed  thus  is,  I  think,  because  we 
have  not  done  our  part  in  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  message 
of  peace.  We  peace  people  have  been,  at  least  we  have  been  looked 
upon  as,  negative.  We  have  not  had  an  aggressive  spirit.  If  we 
want  to  overcome  these  erroneous  beliefs,  if  we  want  to  carry  others 
with  us,  we  must  show  that  evil  can  be  overcome  with  good.  We 
must  actually  overcome  evil.  We  must  carry  out  in  pacific  ways 
what  they  think  is  to  be  done  by  the  sword.  We  must  let  them  see 
that  we  are  actually  getting  things  done  in  Christ's  way. 


33 

Another  thing:  I  think  we  ought  to  enlist  the  sympathies  of 
the  young  people.  The  peace  movement  has  a  hold  on  the  older 
men  and  women.  l)ut  it  fails  to  attract  the  young  people.  Why  is 
it?  Just  the  want  of  this  aggressive  spirit.  The  young  generation's 
hearts  are  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  Christ  and  of  His  kingdom,  l)ut 
they  do  not  comprehend  the  slow  way  of  non-resistance.  The  peace- 
at-any-price  policy,  as  it  is  called,  does  not  enlist  their  sympathies. 
We  must  go  forward  aggressively  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and 
show  them  that  we  are  overcoming  evil  with  good,  and  that  Christ 
means  to  conquer  the  world.  Christ  was  a  young  man  (I  say  it 
reverently);  He  understood  the  feelings,  the  emotions  and  the  ambi- 
tions of  youth;  He  spoke  to  the  young  people;  He  still  has  a  word 
for  them,  and  I  believe  that  we  ought  to  enlist  them  in  this  war- 
fare. 

The  church  has  failed;  T  have  seen  so  many  proofs  of  it.  I  have 
almost  wept  to  see  the  representatives  of  the  peace  societies  of  the 
continent  of  Europe  stand  up  one  after  another,  as  they  did  a  short 
time  ago  at  the  Peace  Congress  in  Glasgow,  and  say,  "  I  am  an  un- 
believer; I  am  a  freethinker;  I  have  no  use  for  the  Gospel  of 
Christ."  Evidently  the  church  has  failed.  We  have  failed  to  make 
our  principles  a  power.  But  we  must  do  it.  We  must  give  energy 
and  time  to  presenting  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Gospel  of 
peace.  We  must  make  people  understand  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Prince  of  Peace.  If  we  can  do  that  we  shall  be  able  to  take  away 
one  of  the  greatest  obstacles  in  the  world  to  the  progress  of  the 
Gospel.  Many  people  are  being  kept  away  from  Jesus  Christ  by 
this  one  stumbling  block:  that  the  church  endorses  war.  It  is  our 
business  to  change  that  and  to  let  people  understand  that  the  Gos- 
pel is  a  Gospel  of  peace. 

JoHX  Chawxer:  There  are  two  thoughts  that  I  want  to  ex- 
press in  connection  with  two  different  sides  of  the  subject  that  has 
been  presented  this  morning.  With  regard  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Old  Testament  history,  we  know  there  are  some  points  in  it  that  are 
seemingly  not  consistent  with  Christian  principles.  I  am  glad  that 
the  address  we  have  had  to-day  has  dwelt  on  the  points  that  are 
consistent,  and  has  pointed  out  the  Christian  principle,  the  real 
Christ  thread  in  the  Old  Testament,  leading  up  to  Christianity  as 
presented  in  the  life  of  Christ. 

In  regard  to  the  failure  of  Christians,  I  remember  what  I  once 
saw  in  a  railroad  train  in  Indiana.  I  took  from  the  rack  a  Bible 
that  had  been  placed  there  by  some  Bible  Association,  and  on  the 
fly-leaf  some  one  had  written,  "  Christianity  has  produced  more 
wars  than  all  other  causes."  The  answer  that  occurred  to  me  was 
the  remark  of  the  Apostle:  "Whence  come  wars  and  fightings?'" 
etc.,  and  I  wrote  the  reference  to  James  beside  the  statement  on  the 
fl}-leaf.  We  know,  as  we  look  back  over  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  that  there  is  truth  in  the  statement  that  it  has  been 


34 

the  cause  of  much  war — has  undertaken  at  times  to  disseminate  the 
principles  of  peace  by  war.  We  must  do  what  we  can  to  have  it 
different  in  the  future. 

HowAED  M.  Jenkins:  I  only  want  to  take  one  moment  to  say 
that  I  enjoyed  very  much  all  the  papers  of  this  morning,  but  par- 
ticularly the  presentation  by  Professor  Eussell,  and  by  our  friend, 
Dr.  Barton.  They  appear  to  me  in  both  cases  to  have  gone  to  the 
marrow  of  the  subject,  and  to  have  presented  it  to  us  very  admir- 
ably. 

William  W.  Birdsall:  I  have  profited  this  morning  particu- 
larly by  the  presentation  of  the  "  Elements  of  Peace  Doctrine  in 
the  Old  Testament."  I  have  long  found  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
finest  expression  of  aspiration  after  peace.  I  believe  we  ought  to 
come  more  and  more  to  see  in  it  what  Dr.  Barton  has  pointed  out  to 
us,  namely,  the  developing  expression  of  the  mind  of  God  through 
the  errors  of  men,  rising  more  and  more  nearly  to  perfection  as 
time  went  on  and  men  grew  more  and  more  able  to  see  and  realize 
the  light. 

James  B.  Unthank:  I  have  enjoyed  very  much  all  that  has 
been  said.  It  has  been  very  instructive  and  edifying.  I  wish  to 
make  a  suggestion:  I  hope  that  nothing  which  seems  to  reflect 
upon  our  fellow  Christians  of  other  denominations  will  go  out  as 
the  voice  of  this  Convention  that  is  not  thoroughly  authorized  in 
fact.  We  ought  not  to  make  statements  that  may  be  offensive  to 
other  Christian  people,  if  they  are  not  strictly  true. 

The  Chairman:  It  will  certainly  be  imderstood  by  all  that 
the  contents  of  these  papers  are  the  expressions  of  individual 
opinion.  We  have  already  entrusted  to  a  Business  Committee  the 
duty  of  gathering  up  the  threads  of  discussion  and  of  determining 
the  proper  form  which  the  Declaration  of  the  Conference  shall 
take.    This  suggestion  they  will  of  course  take  into  account. 

After  making  announcement  of  meetings  of  the  Business  Com- 
mittee, the  Committee  on  Credentials,  and  the  readiness  of  the  En- 
tertainment Committee  to  provide  all  visiting  members  of  the  Con- 
ference with  homes,  the  Chairman  continued: 

I  wanted  to  say  before  leaving  this  place  that  I  personally  have 
been  more  than  gratified,  and  that  my  heart  is  profoundly  thank- 
ful for  the  response  which  Friends  have  given  to  the  invitation  to 
meet  in  Conference  on  this  subject.  We  have  in  this  room  at  this 
time  representatives  of  those  who  claim,  and  rightly  claim,  the 
name  of  Friends,  from  Maine  to  California,  and  from  Carolina  to 
Oregon;  at  least  one  Friend  has  crossed  the  continent  from  the 
borders  of  the  Pacific  to  this  City  of  Brotherly  Love  on  the  Dela- 
are,  for  the  single  purpose  of  being  with  us  here  and  sharing  the 


35 

benefit  of  a  Conference  like  this.  Surely  we  who  dwell  near  by 
ought  to  appreciate  such  a  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  even  a  single  in- 
dividual; and  we  ought  to  draw  inspiration  from  it  for  the  work 
that  we  have  in  hand.  I  ])ersonally  have  felt  that  inspiration  as  I 
have  looked  over  this  audience  to-day;  and  I  could  only  wish  that 
every  one  of  you  could,  in  turn,  take  a  seat  upon  this  platforui  and 
look  into  the  face  of  such  an  audience.  It  is  a  rare  company  of 
rare  men  and  rare  women.  It  is  a  gifted  company,  able  to  respond  to 
the  invitation  to  discuss  the  most  important  and  profound  topics 
that  are  to  come  before  us  from  hour  to  hour.  I  shall  vacate  this 
chair  on  declaring  the  meeting  adjourned;  and  when  we  come  to- 
gether at  half-past  three  o'clock  this  afternoon  the  place  will  be 
taken  by  my  friend,  Howard  M.  Jenkins,  of  Philadelphia.  The 
meeting  now  is  adjourned  until  that  hour. 


Second  Session, 

Fifth-day  Afternoon,  Twelfth  Month  12th. 


The  Conference  reassembled  in  Witherspoon  Hall  at  3.30  p.m., 
with  Howard  M.  Jenkins,  editor  of  the  Friends'  Intelligencer,  pre- 
siding. A  few  moments  were  given  to  silent  devotion  before  en- 
tering upon  the  exercises  of  the  session. 

The  Chairman:  We  have  had  sent  us  several  communications 
expressing  sympathy  with  the  objects  of  the  Conference.  Some  of 
these,  or  at  least  their  substance,  will  be  presented  at  this  time  by 
the  Chairman  of  the  Business  Committee. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  The  W.  C.  T.  U.,  of  Hoopeston, 
111.,  sends  the  following  message:  "  '  The  Lord  will  give  strength 
unto  His  people;  the  Lord  will  bless  His  people  with  peace.'  We 
most  earnestly  pray  that  this  meeting  may  be  productive  of  much 
good,  believing  that  it  will  mould  public  sentiment  in  the  right  di- 
rection, and  that  you,  with  us,  may  hasten  the  advance  of  Chris- 
tian love,  and  henceforth  every  effort  may  be  made  to  settle  all  dif- 
ficulties by  means  of  that  love  which  the  Christ  principle  sets  forth. 
Mary  G.  Smith,  President;  Etta  K.  Smith,  Secretary."  Similar 
communications,  conveying  sympathy  and  desiring  the  success  of 
the  Conference,  have  been  received  (one  or  two  of  these  came  at  a 
later  session)  from  "  Trenton  Friends'  Association,"  Trenton,  X.  J., 
signed  by  Louisa  H.  Dunn,  Secretary;  from  the  ''  Association  for 
the  Promotion  of  First-Day  Schools  within  the  Limits  of  Phila- 
delphia Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,"  signed  by  John  L.  Carver  and 
Mary  H.  F.  Merillat,  Clerks;  from  Burlingion  Quarterly  Meeting  of 
Friends,  Trenton,  N".  J.,  signed  by  Franklin  S.  Zelley,  Clerk;  from 
Lobo  Monthly  Meeting,  Coldstream,  Canada,  signed  by  Samuel  P. 
Zavitz  and  others;  from  the  "  General  Conference  of  Friends'  Asso- 
ciations," held  at  Moorestown,  N.  J.,  signed  by  William  C.  Coles, 
Chairman;  from  White  Water  Quarterly  Meeting,  held  at  Fall 
Creek,  near  Pendleton,  Indiana,  signed  by  T.  Morris  Hardy,  Clerk. 

Ja:mes  Wood:  If  the  Chair  please,  I  have  a  proposition  that  I 
wish  to  present,  and  I  ask  for  its  reference  to  the  Business  Commit- 
tee without  reading  it. 

The  Chairman:  James  Wood  submits  a  proposition  which  he 
asks  to  have  referred  to  the  Business  Committee.  That  course  will 
be  taken. 


37 

The  Chairman  then    spoke  as    follows    on    the    subject,  "  The 
American  Ideal "  : 


THE  AMERICAN  IDEAL. 

BY  HOWARD  M.  JENKINS. 

In  conversation,  a  good  many  years  ago.  with  the  late  Jamos  H. 
Campbell,  of  Pennsylvania,  sometime  representative  in  Congress, 
and  later,  by  appointment  of  President  Lincoln,  minister  to  Swe- 
den, he  described,  not  without  emotion,  an  incident  which  had  oc- 
curred to  him  while  in  the  service  abroad.  He  was  making  an  ex- 
cursion far  up  the  coast  of  Norway,  when  in  one  of  the  deep  and 
grand  bays  there — the  fiords — he  met  a  plain  peasant  of  the  coun- 
iry.  It  was  near  the  close  of  our  Civil  War — perhaps  after  tliat 
event — and  the  Noinvegian,  finding  that  the  visitor  was  an  Ameri- 
can, questioned  him  with  pathetic  eagerness.  "  Tell  me,  sir,"  he 
said,  **'  tell  me,  does  that  great  republic  yet  live?  " 

Shall  we,  to-day,  ask  that  question?  Does  the  great  republic  yet 
live? 

It  was,  prior  to  the  year  1898,  perhaps  we  may  say  prior  to  the 
year  1899,  the  name  of  the  United  States  of  America  which, 
amongst  all  nations,  most  and  best  moved  the  hearts  of  men.  It 
stood  to  them  as  the  symbol  of  hope.  Whether  it  was  a  plain  peas- 
ant of  Scandinavia,  far  up  toward  the  Arctic  snows,  or  whether  it 
was  a  brown  islander  of  the  far  Pacific,  under  tropic  heats,  their 
admiration  went  out  to  the  nation  which  seemed  to  stand,  and  in 
large  measure  did  stand,  for  the  elevation  of  mankind.  Doubt- 
less, across  the  seas'  breadth  the  scars  and  seams  upon  our  national 
edifice  were  hardly  seen;  it  was  the  broad  features,  the  lofty  and 
striking  outline,  which  compelled  respect.  Our  more  sordid,  our 
less  generous,  qualities  were  obscured  by  the  great  principles  which 
we  declared — those  of  human  rights  and  of  humane  endeavor. 

Let  us  reflect  that  our  republic,  in  the  year  1898,  was  almost 
a  century  and  a  quarter  old.  Never  in  all  that  time,  but  once — 
when  Mexico  was  attacked  in  the  interest  of  slavery,  and  by  its 
order — had  we  waged  an  aggressive  war  upon  another  nation.  On 
the  contrary,  those  peoples  who  had  struggled  for  better  conditions, 
the  world  over,  looked  always  to  us.  It  was  the  United  States  who 
promptly  recognized  the  republics  of  South  America  when  they 
rose  against  Spain;  who  gave  moral  support  to  Greece  when  she 
defied  the  Turk;  who  did  not  conceal  her  sympathy  for  the  Hun- 
garians when  they  were  in  revolt  against  Austria;  who  gave  the  or- 
der which  freed  Mexico  finally  of  European  control.  Not,  the 
world  over,  did  any  people,  anywhere,  contending  for  the  common, 
the  inherent,  the  natural  rights  of  men,  fail  to  look  to  the  United 
States  for  at  least  a  sympathetic  and  encouraging  word. 

There   was   every   reason    for   this.     The    United    States   was 


38 

founded  upon  principles  which  aroused  the  world's  hope.  In  its 
declaration  of  the  reasons  for  claiming  an  independent  life,  it  ap- 
pealed not  to  any  narrow  and  technical  reasoning,  not  to  selfish  and 
mean  motives,  not  to  considerations  of  mere  statecraft,  not  to  mili- 
tary ardor  or  personal  ambition,  but  first  and  above  all  to  doctrines 
of  civil  liberty  which  applied  to  every  nation  and  people,  and  which 
roused  them  all  to  look  for  a  better  day. 

Justice,  then,  freedom,  goodwill,  the  humane  and  generous 
conservation  of  life,  the  elevation  of  the  individual  man,  was  the 
charter  principle  of  the  United  States,  and  signified  its  Ideal.  It 
was  an  inspired  choice.  No  power  in  human  government  can  be  so 
great.  No  influence  can  be  so  enduring.  It  is  this  ideal  which  the 
world  needs.  It  is  this  that  the  world  longs  for.  We  do  not  doubt, 
surely,  as  we  survey  the  wide  field  of  human  experiences,  that  all 
too  much  there  is  injustice,  and  oppression,  and  hardship,  that  men 
sink,  and  women  faint,  and  children  die,  because  of  their  burdens. 
Whether  it  is  in  the  Old  World  or  the  New,  whether  the  system  of 
government  is  ancient  and  decayed,  or  modern  and  corrupted, 
whether  the  sun  shines  hot  there  or  the  winds  blow  cold,  whether 
the  mountains  rise  high  or  the  plains  are  wide,  in  many  lands  peo- 
ple long  for  emancipation,  and  have — or  did  have — to  incite  and 
support  their  hopes  the  example  of  this  great  republic. 

What  is  it,  let  us  ask  more  particularly,  that  gives  vitality  to 
this  Ideal?  What  is  its  animating  principle?  Not  the  methods  of 
Force.  They  have  been  exploited,  amid  blood  and  tears,  for  ages. 
It  is  not  the  "  prestige  "  of  armies  or  navies.  Caesar  and  Napoleon, 
all  the  generals  and  the  admirals,  greater  and  less,  have  drained 
dry  that  turbid  stream.  It  is  not  the  tinsel  of  "  glory,"  the  glit- 
ter of  rank,  the  pride  and  luxury  of  privileged  classes.  None  of 
these.  The  Old  World,  which  has  looked  so  longingly  to  the  New, 
groans  under  them  all.  To  support  armies,  to  build  navies,  to  carry 
on  "  campaigns,"  to  work  destruction,  to  maintain  luxury  and 
pride,  it  has  taxes  that  exhaust  the  strength  of  labor,  and  exactions 
that  grind  poverty  into  degradation.  Lands  like  Germany,  in 
which  we  are  told  free  institutions  had  their  birth,  suffer  as  well  as 
Spain  and  Italy;  Teuton  as  well  as  Latin  is  in  bondage;  Russia,  Tur- 
key, India,  are  all  staggering  to-day  under  systems  which  the  Amer- 
ican Ideal  rejects. 

Our  system  was  the  opposite  of  theirs.  It  was  the  antithesis  of 
Force,  of  Oppression,  of  Inequality,  of  Caste.  And  it  was  still 
more.  It  had  the  note  of  generosity,  of  kindliness,  of  comradeship. 
This  made  our  ideal  distinctive,  and  awakened  the  world's  response. 
It  was  because  we  declared  Goodwill  that  goodwill  returned  to  us. 
That  was  the  sign  and  the  secret  of  our  power.  No  guns  we  ever 
made,  no  armor  we  ever  forged,  no  apparatus  of  destruction  we  ever 
contrived,  brought  us  nearer  to  the  heart  of  other  nations.  But 
every  sign  we  made  of  regard  for  their  rights,  every  help  we  gave 
them  to  continue  their  struggle  upward  and  forward,  made  them 


39 

our  friend?,  firnilv  and  faithfully — tied  them  to  us  with  better  than 
"  liooks  of  steel." 

Such  was  and  is  the  tme  American  Ideal.  N"ot  one  great  name 
in  Ainerican  liistory  ij^  associated  with  anytliing  that  contravenes 
it.  Whether  we  go  back  to  the  first  president  of  the  republic,  or 
farther,  to  tliose  who  planted  the  colonies,  we  shall  find  the  one  im- 
pulse of  tliose  who  enjoy  a  righteous  fame  in  our  annals  was  to 
raise  men,  not  to  depress  them;  to  help  them  on,  not  to  grind  them 
down;  to  enlighten  their  minds  and  elevate  their  characters,  not  to 
treat  them  as  '*  dumb,  driven  cattle."  The  spirit  of  the  land,  the 
great  intent  of  its  peo})le.  that  out  of  which  hopes  sprang  and  fresh 
efforts  rose,  that  which  faced  hardships,  which  bore  trials,  which 
contended  with  difficulties,  was  a  generoi;s,  a  hopeful,  amagnani- 
mous  one. 

It  is  not  new  to  say  this.  0,  no!  The  true  grandeur  of  nations 
was  long  since  nobly  defined  and  splendidly  proclaimed.  But  old 
truth  must  be  ever  freshly  learned  and  continually  repeated.  We 
mu5t  drink  again  at  the  pure  fountains  of  our  national  life.  Our 
duty — ''  plain  duty,"  indeed — is  to  preserve  to  ourselves  and  to  the 
nations  the  Ideal  which  is  so  honorable,  and  has  been  so  honored. 
We  must  keep  our  beacon  burning.  Its  rays  of  hope  are  needed. 
We  must  keep  our  true  place  in  the  world.  Our  work  is  not  to 
threaten,  not  to  oppress,  not  to  plunder,  not  to  slay;  it  is  to  do  in 
the  community  of  nations  such  work  as  a  good  and  upright  man 
does  in  the  community  about  him.  This  will  make  us  truly  a 
"  world  power."  Then  we  shall  be  able  to  answer  joyfully  to  any 
challenge,  in  the  remotest  corner  of  the  world,  "  Yes,  brother,  the 
great  republic  still  lives  !  " 

The  Chairman:  The  first  paper  this  afternoon  will  be  rv  ad  l)y 
our  friend,  William  (t.  Hubbard,  of  Lansing,  Michigan. 


EARLY   FRIENDS'  VIEW  OF  PEACE  SUSTAINED  BY 

SCRIPTURE,  BY  REASON  AND  BY  HIGHER 

CIVILIZATION. 

BY  WILLIAM  G.  HUBBARD,  LANSING,  MICH. 

When  George  Fox  was  offered  the  captaincy  of  a  military  com- 
pany he  said,  "  I  have  come  into  that  experience  which  destroys 
the  root  and  cause  of  war." 

This  expression,  which  has  become  classic  among  Friends,  con- 
tains the  very  substance  of  their  views  on  the  peace  question.  More 
fully  stated  it  is  this:  The  Christian  experience  is  one  wherein  the 
"  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
is  given  us."  The  heart  and  life  become  controlled  by  the  love 
which  Christ  manifested.  Love  takes  out  all  malice,  covet ousness 
and  revenge;  hence  destroys  the  very  "  root  of  war."     If  the  Apos- 


40 

tie  James  was  right  in  concluding  that  "  wars  and  fightings  come 
from  the  lusts  that  war  in  your  members,"  then  if  you  introduce 
that  which  destroys  those  lusts  you  destroy  "  the  root  and  cause 
of  war." 

This  is  a  simple  proposition,  but  it  contains  the  most  irre- 
sistible logic.  Man  with  sin  in  him  is  a  warring  creature.  He  is 
ferocious,  unkind,  unjust,  inhuman,  cruel.  Jacob  Riis  takes  the 
ground  that  every  child  born  since  the  fall  of  man  is  by  nature  a 
savage,  and  needs  to  be  civilized  by  some  refining  process.  Whether 
Jacob  Riis  is  right  or  not,  we  all  know  there  is  much  of  savagery  in 
man's  unregenerate  nature.  But  the  reconstruction  that  he  gets 
in  his  inner  nature  when  he  is  regenerated  by  Christ  takes  out  or 
supplants  that  savage  nature. 

When  Oliver  Cromwell  asked  George  Fox,  the  founder  of 
Friends'  Society,  if  he  would  "  promise  not  to  take  up  a  carnal 
sword  or  weapon  against  him  or  the  government  as  it  then  was,'' 
George  Fox  replied:  "I  deny  the  wearing  or  drawing  of  a  carnal 
sword  or  any  other  outward  weapon  against  him  or  any  man.  And 
that  I  was  sent  of  God  to  stand  a  witness  against  all  violence  and 
against  the  works  of  darkness;  and  to  turn  people  from  darkness 
to  the  light  and  to  bring  them  from  the  occasion  of  war  and  fight- 
ing to  the  peaceful  gospel,  and  from  being  evil-doers,  which  the 
magistrates'  sword  should  be  a  terror  to." 

This  was  written  by  George  Fox  to  Cromwell  in  1649,  and  for 
more  than  250  years  every  true  follower  of  George  Fox  has  be- 
lieved and  taught  that  no  Christian  could  take  up  the  sword 
"  against  the  King  or  any  man." 

''  Or  any  man,"  with  George  Fox,  covered  the  whole  human 
race,  in  all  nations,  heathen  or  civilized.  All  to  him  were  children 
of  our  Heavenly  Father.     Hence,  all  must  be  loved  and  cared  for. 

The  "  experience "  into  which  George  Fox  had  come  ''  de- 
stroyed "  not  merely  "  the  root  and  cause  "  of  some  wars,  but  of 
"  war,"  of  all  carnal  war. 

Early  Friends  believed  and  practiced  this  doctrine.  They 
would  not  go  to  war  against  the  government  or  for  the  government. 
They  took  this  position,  not  from  what  George  Fox  had  said  or 
done,  but  from  what  Christ  had  taught  on  the  subject,  and  from 
what  he  had  wrought  in  them. 

in  the  year  1675  Robert  Barclay  in  his  "Apology  "  (page  514) 
declares  "  revenge  and  war  an  evil  as  opposite  and  contrary  to  the 
Spirit  and  doctrine  of  Christ  as  light  to  darkness."  He  thinks  all 
tlie  evils  of  war  come  from  opposition  to  Christ.  He  says: 
"  Through  contempt  of  Christ's  law  the  whole  world  is  filled  with 
violence,  oppression,  murders,  ravishing  of  women  and  virgins, 
spoilings,  depredations,  burnings,  devastations,  and  all  manner  of 
lascivious  cruelty.  So  that  it  is  strange  that  men,  made  after  the 
image  of  God,  should  have  so  much  degenerated  that  they  rather 
bear  the  image  and  nature  of  roaring  lions,  tearing  tigers,  devour- 


41 

ing  wolves,  and  raging  boars  than  of  rational  creatures  endued  with 
reason."' 

This  is  a  graphic  picture  of  what  war  produces  in  men  when 
they  reject  the  "  law  of  Christ." 

William  Penu's  treaty  and  dealings  with  the  Indians  on  the 
Christian  principles  of  brotherhood,  justice  and  love  constitute  one 
of  the  brightest  pages  in  tlie  history  of  America.  In  that  treaty 
William  Penn  asked  that  Christians  and  Indians  sliould  be  bound 
with  ''  a  firm  chain  of  friendship  made  between  them,  and  that  this 
chain  of  friendship  should  always  be  made  stronger  and  stronger, 
and  be  kept  bright  and  clean,  without  rust  or  spot,  between  our 
children  and  children's  children  while  the  creeks  and  rivers  run, 
and  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  endure."  Is  there  anything  more 
beautiful  and  Christlike  in  man's  relationship  with  man  than  that? 
Is  it  not  astonishing  that  statesmen  and  rulers  have  not  long  since 
seen  the  wisdom  of  Penn's  policy,  and  formed  treaties  of  good  fel- 
low'ship  and  love  and  arbitration  all  over  the  world?  AVill  it  not 
be  well  for  this  Conference  to  appoint  a  delegation  to  wait  on  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  ask  him  to  take  the  initiative  in 
forming  treaties  with  all  nations  to  bind  them  to  "  good  fellow- 
ship "  and  arbitration? 

SUSTAINED  BY  SCRIPTURE, 

The  attitude  taken  by  George  Fox  and  the  early  Friends  is  in 
beautiful  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  Christ.  The  great  Galilean 
laid  down  general  principles.  He  did  not  give  specific  laws.  He 
legislated  to  control  conditions  of  life  rather  than  the  acts  of  men. 
Men  try  to  control  the  stream  of  life,  but  Jesus  struck  at  the  foun- 
tain. Men  make  laws  to  control  men's  conduct;  Jesus  sought  to 
control  their  purposes.  Men  decide  a  certain  action  to  be  wrong, 
then  make  a  law  forbidding  it.  And  men  of  evil  purpose  find  new 
ways  of  doing  WTong;  hence  there  is  no  end  of  legislation.  But 
Jesus  legislated  for  the  unborn  thought.  The  law-books  of  men 
are  too  multitudinous  to  be  counted:  they  would  fill  many  large 
buildings.  The  laws  of  Jesus  Christ  are  few  and  can  be  read  in  an 
hour.  In  what  is  generally  called  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  Jesus 
announces  his  platform  of  principles.  The  great  central  thought 
is  the  law  of  love.  The  most  striking  expression  of  this  law  is 
found  in  the  last  ten  verses  of  the  5th  chapter  of  Matthew.  Here 
he  declares  what  Erasmus  called  the  new  philosophy.  This  "new 
philosophy,"  this  "  diviner  law."  is  tha+  hve  should  govern  the  lives 
of  men.  The  old  regime  of  revenge,  of  "  an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a 
tooth  for  a  tooth,"  was  ended.  His  followers  were  to  "  resist  not 
evil,"  they  were  to  "  love  their  enemies,"  to  pray  for  them,  show 
kindness  to  them,  clothe  them,  feed  them,  bind  up  their  wounds, 
suffer  wrong  at  their  hands  rather  tlian  do  them  harm. 

"  Love  your  enemies,"  said  the  great  Galilean.  Why  should 
we  do  this?     He  explains  in  his  next  utterance.     "  That  ye  may  be 


42 

the  children  of  your  father  in  heaven."  Ah,  indeed!  must  one 
love  his  enemies  in  order  to  be  a  child  of  God?  That  is  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Son  of  God.  He  emphasizes  it.  "  If  ye  love  them  which 
love  you,  what  reward  have  you  ?  "  "  If  ye  forgive  not  men  their 
trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father  forgive  you  your  trespasses." 
Nothing  could  be  more  definite.  It  leaves  us  without  choice;  it  is 
this  or  nothing. 

The  standard  is  high,  but  Christ  himself  makes  ability  to  "  love 
your  enemies  "  the  very  basis  of  Sonship.  Do  this  "  that  ye  may 
be  children  of  your  father  in  heaven." 

But  cannot  a  man  love  his  enemies  and  kill  them  with  Mauser 
rifles  and  Krupp  guns  sometimes?  If  you  think  you  can  govern 
your  neighbor's  household  better  than  he  is  governing  it,  is  it  not 
your  duty  to  institute  your  superior  rule  of  family  government  over 
his  household  at  whatever  cost?  The  father  of  the  neighboring 
household  will  no  doubt  object  to  your  interference.  He  may  re- 
sist you  with  force.  He  will  doubtless  call  to  his  aid  his  hired 
hands  and  older  sons.  And  you  may  have  to  kill  him  and  some 
other  members  of  his  family.  But  would  you  not  better  kill  off 
half  his  tribe  than  not  to  have  his  children  brought  up  under  your 
superior  gospel  rule?  A  military  general  said  to  a  conference  of 
preachers  in  California:  "We  will  make  way  for  the  Gospel  in  the 
Philippines  if  we  have  to  kill  half  of  the  inhabitants  to  do  it."  The 
papers  said  many  of  the  preachers  cheered  the  expression.  N"ow 
if  that  is  consistent  with  loving  your  enemies,  then  heaven  is  in 
harmony  with  hell,  murder  is  a  virtue,  hatred  is  love,  darkness  is 
light. 

But  we  insist  that  love  is  beneficence,  it  is  kindness,  it  is  help- 
fulness. We  insist  that  Paul  was  right  when  he  said,  "  Love  work- 
eth  no  ill  to  one's  neighbor."  We  insist  that  you  Englishmen  can- 
not love  your  neighbors,  the  Boers,  and  go  on  slaughtering  them 
about  the  kind  of  government  they  should  have  in  their  household, 
the  Transvaal.  They  ofliered  to  arl)itrate,  and  after  that,  it  seems 
to  the  writer,  every  man  killed  was  a  man  murdered. 

"  Love  worketh  no  ill,"  and  it  is  not  love  that  says,  "  We  will 
conquer  the  Boers  if  we  have  to  kill  all  the  population  to  do  it." 

We  make  the  above  remark,  not  through  desire  to  oppose  the 
British,  but  to  give  concreteness  to  our  argument.  The  law  of  love 
is  in  opposition  to  all  war.  It  was  not  love  that  drove  the  Indians 
from  their  lands  and  slaughtered  them  to  get  possession.  Love 
said,  "  Nay;  but  we  will  buy  their  lands  of  them  ";  we  will  treat 
them  as  friends,  as  brethren;  we  will  deal  justly  with  them.  The 
King  said,  "  But  you  have  already  bought  their  lands  of  me.  Friend 
William."  But  love  insisted  that  usurpation  of  ownership  gave  no 
right  to  their  lands.  Which  was  the  Christian  way?  Let  the 
peace  propaganda  keep  that  question  before  all  men:  "  ^Vllich  is 
the  Christian  way  ?  " 

If  the  Englishman  cannot  love  the  Boer  by  killing  hiiu,  neither 


43 

can  the  American  love  the  Filipino  by  chasing  him  through  swamps 
and  burning  his  vilhiges  and  destroying  life  till  whole  district's  are 
depopulated.  The  Filipino  made  a  constitution  and  planneil  his 
own  government.  But  King  Greed  said:  ''  We  bought  of  Spain 
the  right  to  rule  the  Filipinos."  But  Spain,  the  usurper,  had  no 
more  right  to  transfer  rule  to  America  than  King  George  bad  a  lii^ht 
to  transfer  tiie  land  of  the  Indians.  We  should  have  treated  the 
Filipinos  as  we  did  Cuba,  and  assisted  them  in  forming  a  govern- 
ment and  invited  them  to  become  a  part  of  our  government,  if  they 
wished.  But  war  tramples  down  rights,  and  constitutions,  and  sets 
at  naught  all  commandments  of  God. 

AVAR   IS   IBRATIONAL. 

There  is  no  sense  of  right  iti  men's  fists.  If  two  men  dispute, 
and  each  contends  he  is  right,  how  are  they  to  prove  which  is  right? 
Certainly  not  by  pounding  each  other's  faces.  No  matter  which 
comes  off  best  in  such  a  conflict,  it  does  not  prove  that  he  is  right. 
If  two  men  cannot  prove  which  is  right  by  a  physical  contest,  two^ 
thousand  cannot  do  so  nor  two  millions.  There  is  no  sense  of 
right  in  muscle,  nor  in  powder  and  lead,  nor  in  cannon,  nor  in  ships 
of  war.  But  the  human  mind  can  weigh  problems  of  equity,  and 
reason  alone  can  find  the  right.  Hence  Dr.  Franklin  was  correct 
when  he  said:  "'  War  is  the  maddest  human  folly."  No  acts  of  men 
so  completely  override  reason  as  war.     War  is  insanity. 

HIGHER  IDEAS  OF  CIYTLIZATIOX. 

I-]verything  that  civilizes  man  refines  his  nature,  makes  him 
more  sensitive  and  kind  in  his  feelings,  more  considerate  towards 
his  fellow-l)eings,  more  careful  not  to  hurt  or  oppress  or  to  wrong 
them?  The  more  highly  one  is  civilized  the  more  he  revolts  at 
cruelty,  oppression,  wrong  and  bloodshed.  Hence  as  civilization 
advances  by  a  thousand  processes  of  culture,  education,  refinement, 
the  opposition  to  war  grows  stronger,  and  the  greater  is  the  demand 
that  nations  shall  settle  their  disputes  by  arbitration. 

The  greatest  teacher  the  world  has  yet  received  set  up  a  stand- 
ard of  life,  which,  when  followed,  will  lift  men  above  all  war,  blood- 
shed, cruelty  and  oppression.  That  standard  is  in  the  words, 
"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 

Love  means  beneficence,  kindness.  When  you  love  you  want 
to  help,  to  happify,  to  show  goodwill.  Love  him  as  yourself,  and 
you  will  no  more  think  of  taking  his  life  than  of  taking  your  own 
life. 

Thy  neighbor  may  be  African  living  in  heathen  cruelties.  Love 
him  into  a  better  life.  Show  him  a  better  way.  Don't  shoot  him 
about  boundary  lines,  nor  to  get  his  lands,  nor  his  diamond  mines, 
nor  for  an}-  other  purpose.  Treat  him  justly,  educate  him,  civilize 
him,  not  with  New  England  rum  nor  Milwaukee  beer,  nor  with 


44 

Mauser  bullets,  nor  with  Krupp  guns;  but  civilize  him  with  Bibles, 
missionaries,  school  teachers,  printing  presses.  Teach  him  to  ''  do 
Justly  and  love  mercy/'  not  by  robbery  and  murder,  but  by  doing 
justly  before  him.  Teach  him  righteousness  by  being  righteous, 
not  by  despoiling  him  of  his  land  and  murdering  him.  In  other 
words,  don't  try  to  teach  him  the  ways  of  peace  with  implements 
of  war. 

It  may  be  true,  and  doubtless  is,  that  some  are  growing  worse 
in  spite  of  good  opportunities  and  good  environments,  but  much 
more  is  it  true  that  the  church,  the  school  house,  the  printing  press, 
the  court  of  justice,  the  reign  of  law,  are  lifting  the  race  up  into  a 
refinement  where  it  revolts  at  the  idea  of  slaughtering  men  by  ma- 
chinery and  blowing  them  to  pieces  with  giant  powder. 

War  is  concentrated  cruelty.  Look  at  those  two  vessels  yonder 
at  sea.  They  have  begun  a  tremendous  cannonading  of  each  other. 
The  roar  of  the  cannon,  the  screeching  of  the  shells  and  the  deafen- 
ing explosions  of  bombs  make  one  feel  as  though  all  the  magazines 
of  pandemonium  were  going  off.  A  gunner  gives  the  range  to  his 
gun  and  his  own  head  is  taken  off  by  a  cannon  ball,  but  his  aim 
sends  a  shell  crashing  into  the  machinery  of  the  other  vessel.  It 
explodes  and  sets  the  great  battleship  on  fire;  but  men  fight  and 
fight  until  the  deck  is  strewn  with  mangled  bodies,  and  the  flame 
has  heated  the  iron  deck  so  hot  that  it  is  roasting  the  flesh  of  the 
wounded.  Some  are  jumping  into  the  sea  to  drown  rather  than  be 
roasted  to  death.  Look!  Yonder  a  great  cannon  ball  goes  plow- 
ing its  way  through  the  bodies  along  that  deck  and  scatters  the 
flesh  and  bones  of  soldiers  into  the  air  and  into  the  sea!  The  great 
vessel  that  cost  millions  is  sunk  by  an  enemy  in  an  hour;  and  hun- 
dreds of  men,  with  dear  ones  at  home,  are  dying  in  the  flames  or 
drowning  in  the  sea. 

What  does  it  all  mean?  Had  the  men  on  the  victorious  vessel 
been  injured  by  the  men  on  the  other  vessel?  Not  the  least.  The 
victors  and  vanquished  had  never  looked  into  each  other's  faces. 
They  did  not  even  speak  the  same  language.  Why,  then,  this  aw- 
ful slaughter  of  strangers?  It  is  war.  And  war  sets  at  naught  all 
laws  of  humanity  and  all  requirements  of  mercy.  In  the  language 
of  Sherman,  "  War  is  crueltv  and  you  cannot  refine  it.  War  is 
hell." 

Now  there  is  but  one  conclusion  possible  from  the  above  con- 
siderations. The  position  of  the  early  Friends  in  rejecting  war  is 
abundantly  sustained  by  the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  These 
Scriptures  being  given  forth  by  divine  wisdom,  it  follows  that  what- 
ever position  is  consistent  with  them  must  comport  with  highest 
reason  and  wisdom.  Any  other  attitude  would  make  the  author  of 
them  an  unwise  and  irrational  being. 

It  follows  that  as  these  divine  teachings  are  better  understood 
in  the  light  of  higher  civilization,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  can  be 
applied  to  the  affairs  of  nations.     The  fact  that  the  United  States, 


45- 

the  nation  most  nearly  np  to  the  Gospel  plane,  has  had  53  disagree- 
ments with  other  nations,  sneh  as  usually  lead  to  war,  and  has  set- 
tled 48  of  them  hy  arhitration,  shows  that  George  Fox,  Robert 
Barclay  and  William  Penn  took  a  position  250  years  ago  that  is 
just  now  dawning  upon  the  most  advanced  thinkers  as  true — true 
to  God,  true  to  statesmanship,  and  true  to  higher  civilization. 

The  Chairman:  We  will  next  have  a  paper  by  Mariana  W. 
Chapman,  of  Brooklyn,  New  York,  on  "•  The  Inherent  Immorality 
of  War." 


THE  INHERENT  IMMORALITY  OF  WAR. 

BY  MARIANA    W.   CHAPMAN,   BROOKLYN. 

Immorality  is  a  mild  term  when  one  can  hardly  think  of  a  com- 
mand in  the  decalogne  that  is  not  violated  in  war.  Crime  changes 
its  aspect  when  it  is  held  up  in  the  dazzling  light  of  that  kind  of 
conflict.  Our  moral  sense  is  instantly  destroyed;  manslaughter  be- 
comes virtue,  and  yet  makes,  none  the  less,  fatherless  children, 
widows,  and  parents  with  broken  hearts.  The  cruelty  that  runs  a 
man  through  with  the  point  of  a  bayonet  becomes  honor  and 
bravery  and  courage,  but  the  man  bleeds  and  suffers  and  dies.  We 
have  the  charge  of  the  six  hundred,  and  it  is  so  much  greater  and 
finer  and  more  thrilling  because  they  do  not  arrive — the  six  hun- 
dred. 

What  is  the  glamor  that  is  cast  over  our  eyes  that  so  perverts 
their  vision?  It  is  the  lurid  light  of  war,  the  perversion  of  moral- 
ity. Think  how  nations  look  at  their  great  Gatling  guns,  and  con- 
sider them  valuable  in  the  ratio  of  the  number  of  men  they  will 
sweep  off  of  the  face  of  the  earth,  the  same  men  whom,  in  the  per- 
spective of  peace,  they  would  consider  it  incumbent  to  treat  with 
all  respect  and  consideration.  And  then  revenge!  It  cannot  be 
more  strikingly  set  forth  in  character  than  in  Rudyard  Kipling's 
ghastly  poem  of  "  The  Grave  of  the  Hundred  Head."  It  was 
after — 

"...     the  men  of  tlie  First  Shikaris 
Picked  up  their  Subaltern  dead 
With  a  big  blue  mark  in  his  forehead 
And  the  back  blown  out  of  his  head." 

And  in  their  vengeance  upon  the  enemy 

'■  Five  score  heads  were  taken. 
Five  score  heads  and  twain. 

And  the  drip,  drip,  drip  from  the  baskets 
Reddened  the  grass  by  the  way." 


All  of  these  heads  were  piled  up  on  the  grave  of  their  young  lieu- 
tenant, and  he  concludes: 

"  Thus  was  the  lesson  plain 
Of  the  wTath  of  the  First  Shikaris, 
The  price  of  a  white  man  slain." 

He  was  slain  by  a  treacherous  foe;  but  even  treachery  has  its  advo- 
cates when  it  is  practiced  upon  the  enemy.  It  is  the  attribute  of 
a  skillful  general  to  surprise  the  opposing  army. 

We  chronicle  with  exultation  the  simulation  and  cunning  that 
leads  the  enemy  astray  and  makes  him  an  easier  victim.  It  be- 
longs to  this  perverted  standard.  And  then,  the  impoverishment 
of  the  nation  to  compass  this  killing  of  men!  All  these  great 
armies  must  be  maintained  by  the  labor  behind  them,  labor  that 
could  be  turned  to  so  much  better  purpose.  And  what  the  army 
does  not  get  for  its  necessities  lawfully,  it  must  take  unlawfully  as 
it  goes  through  the  country — which  puts  robbery  at  a  premium. 
Let  us  give  everything  its  plain  name!  Horses,  cattle,  hogs,  chick- 
ens, corn,  supplies  of  all  kinds,  carefully  garnered  by  hard-working 
farmers,  the  fruits  and  harvests  of  the  year,  are  seized  by  ordinarily 
honest  men.  All  these  things  go  on  from  camps,  and  there  is  no 
sense  of  moral  obliquity;  and  gambling — shall  we  speak  of  the  in- 
creased temptation  to  squander  the  little  that  belongs  to  the  sol- 
dier's life?  and  drunkenness — a  temptation  so  prominent  that 
reams  of  paper  have  been  covered  with  arguments  for  the  greatest 
safeguard  against  its  peril!  All  tend  to  poverty,  then  and  there- 
after— the  poverty  that  is  the  handmaiden  of  woe  to  the  third  and 
fourth  generation — individual  poverty  and  the  poverty  of  the 
nation. 

Some  years  ago  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  in  London  an- 
nounced that  40,000,000  pounds  sterling  must  be  raised  for  war 
expenses,  and  that  was  before  the  war  in  South  Africa.  That 
money  must  come  out  of  the  people  at  home. 

There  is  another  immorality,  one  of  the  gravest  of  evils,  that 
goes  with  camp  life.  Wherever  there  are  camps  come  fallen  women, 
and  the  sequence  is  fallen  men.  Xot  long  ago  a  letter  was  pub- 
lished from  an  army  officer  in  India,  asking  for  a  fresh  importation 
of  young  girls  for  these  dens  of  infamy.  Where  were  they  to  come 
from?  Out  of  the  homes  of  the  poor!  Add  to  this  wickedness, 
then,  the  sacrifice  of  young  girls.  And  these  men  in  high  office 
have  called  it  a  necessary  evil.  It  is  nothing  of  the  kind,  because 
there  is  no  such  thing.     The  words  do  not  belong  together. 

There  is  an  immorality  in  forcing  men  into  abnormal,  unsani- 
tary conditions,  conditions  that  fill  the  hospitals  with  disease  and 
pestilence  and  mow  down  more  men  than  powder  and  shot.  Mili- 
tary necessity,  so  called,  not  only  imposes  these  conditions,  but  has 
with  it  a  red  tape  that  often  prevents  an  alleviation  of  much  suf- 
fering that  otherwise  could  be  accomplished.     We  are  too  familiar 


47 

with  recent  details  of  hospital  service  during  the  Spanish  war  not 
to  understand  this  feature. 

War  is  a  violation  of  the  entire  code  of  morals  as  it  lias  stood 
for  the  last  two  thousand  y^'ars.  It  is  the  crime  aijainst  civiliza- 
tion, afxainst  all  that  makes  life  worth  living-,  that  sei)arates  hus- 
bands and  wives,  mothers  and  sons,  sisters  and  brothers.  All  who 
are  dearest  the  soldier  leaves  behind  him  for  what  is  called  the  na- 
tional honor;  another  perversion  of  mind,  the  same  perversion  that 
existed  in  the  past  about  personal  honor  when  Aaron  Burr  shot 
Alexander  Hamilton.  Hundreds  of  others  had  done  the  like  ])e- 
fore;  but  it  needed  that  illustration  to  kill  dueling  in  this  country. 

Now,  as  we  look  back  upon  our  civil  and  fratricidal  war,  is  not 
the  perspective  bloody  enough  at  this  distance  to  make  us  know 
that  it  was  the  grossest  of  immoralities,  and  that  the  North  should 
have  been  willing  to  allow,  and  the  South  to  accept,  indemnity  for 
every  slave  within  its  borders?  It  would  have  cost  less  in  money 
if  they  had  been  paid  for  twice  over.  How  much  less  in  agony 
and  suiTering  and  ])rivation  can  never  be  estimated. 

If  we  have  an  individual  morality  about  homicide,  why  can  we 
not  have  a  collective  morality  about  collective  homicide,  a  collec- 
tive conscience?  It  is  because  the  ascent  of  man  in  ideals  is  not 
complete.  Large  bodies  move  slowly,  but  the  powers  of  light  are 
always  struggling  with  the  powers  of  darkness,  and  each  time  we 
come  out  on  a  higher  plane.  Virtually,  all  nations  agree  that  war 
is  the  worst  manner  of  settling  disputes,  and  that  really  only  shows 
which  nation  is  the  strongest,  not  in  the  least  which  is  right.  That 
kind  of  settlement  is  an  immorality  in  itself.  The  world  is  surely 
reaching  this  point  of  intelligence,  and  will  soon  be  able  to  see  the 
greater  morality  in  an  international  court  of  arbitration.  That  is 
the  acme  of  present  ideals;  but  when  it  is  accomplished  we  shall  not, 
as  some  may  fancy,  have  arrived  at  the  millennium,  but  we  shall 
have  a  basis  of  greater  justice  and  morality  in  the  settlement  of 
national  difficulties. 

We  have,  then,  inherent  in  war,  injustice,  manslaughter,  cruelty, 
revenge,  cunning,  deceit,  treachery,  robbery,  gambling,  intemper- 
ance, oppressive  taxation,  poverty,  impurity  of  life,  a  transgression 
of  sanitary  laws  more  fatal  than  battles,  and  the  terrible  sorrow  that 
comes  to  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

One  can  easily  say  these  sins  are  not  confined  to  war.  The 
world  is  full  of  them  outside.  Yes,  but  none  of  them  are  required 
in  the  line  of  duty.  They  bring  no  honor  to  the  man  who  pro- 
motes them.  He  is  society's  outcast,  and  all  the  forces  of  law  are 
against  him.  Public  opinion  does  not  laud  one  man  for  out- 
generaling another.  He  may  grow  rich  on  the  proceeds,  but  his 
cunning  is  at  a  discount.  He  cannot  rob,  he  cannot  gamble,  and  he 
cannot  drink  with  the  same  impunity.  Society,  at  least,  looks 
askance  at  his  career. 

While  it  is  hard  for  the  average  man  to  touch  pitch  without 


48 

/ 
defilement,  we  must  acknowledge  that  many  do  come  out  of  war 
unscathed,  and  lead  upright  and  honorable  lives;  but  such  acknowl- 
edge freely  the  evil  that  is  inherent.  The  Grand  Army  of  the  Ee- 
public  said  of  General  Grant:  "  He  was  profoundly  convinced  that 
war  as  an  arbiter  of  national  differences  was  a  terrible  crime  against 
humanity,  civilization,  and  the  age.  It  supplants  statesmanship, 
law  and  principle,  and  enthrones  passion,  brute  force  and  disorder, 
to  determine  right  and  justice." 

Shall  we  not  go  one  step  higher  in  our  consideration,  the  step 
that  lies  next  to  morality,  where  the  power  of  the  Divine  touches 
the  human  soul?  Is  it  so  long  ago  that  it  has  lost  its  force  that  the 
Master  said:  "All  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do 
to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them  "  ?  That  is,  at  least,  one  with  some 
of  the  last  words  of  our  lamented  President:  "'  Let  us  remember 
that  our  interest  is  in  concord,  not  conflict,  and  that  our  real  emi- 
nence rests  in  the  victories  of  peace,  not  those  of  war,"  So  let  him 
pass  into  history. 

The  Chaieman:  We  have  passed  over  in  the  program  the 
title  of  the  paper  of  President  Rosenberger,  of  Penn  College,  be- 
cause it  seems  that  he  is  not  here.  It  was  not  known  to  those  in 
charge  of  the  program  until  we  began  the  session  this  afternoon 
that  he  was  not  here;  but  we  have  a  letter  from  him,  which  Dr. 
Trueblood  will  read. 

The  letter  from  President  Rosenberger  was  read,  in  which  he 
expressed  his  deep  regret  at  not  being  able  to  be  present,  his  great 
interest  in  the  Conference,  and  explained  that  his  absence  and  in- 
ability to  prepare  the  paper  were  due  to  sickness  in  the  College 
Faculty. 

The  Chairman:  We  will  take  up  at  once  the  discussion  of 
the  two  papers  that  we  have  had;  and  to  open  the  discussion  we 
will  call  upon  our  friend.  President  Sharpless,  of  Haverford  Col- 
lege. 

Isaac  Sharpless:  It  seems  to  me  that  the  ground  of  objec- 
tion to  war  on  the  part  of  the  early  Friends  was  something  a  little 
deeper  than  the  immorality  of  the  custom.  George  Fox  said,  in  a 
quotation  which  has  been  made  here,  that  he  was  led  into  that 
spirit  which  took  away  the  occasion  of  war.  It  seems  to  me  that 
one  might  argue  in  a  fervid  way  that  wars  were  immoral  and  yet 
be  in  a  spirit  which  would  permit  him  to  go  into  war  if  any  little 
turn  of  the  argimient  should  suggest  to  him  that  this  particular  war 
was  moral.  That,  I  believe,  is  what  is  happening  all  the  time  in  the 
case  of  a  great  number  of  Christian  people.  Abstractly  they  admit 
the  immorality  of  war;  but  when  the  particular  war  arises  they  al- 
ways find  some  reason  to  consider  that  it  is  an  exception  to  all  the 


49 

wjirs  that  have  piecedi'd  it,  and  that  in  this  particular  case,  war — 
this  war — is  moral. 

I  suppose  that  if  a  man  could  be  possessed  of  the  spirit  which 
(Jeorge  Fox  said  he  had,  and  could  go  into  battle  and  stab  his  ene- 
mies with  bayonets  and  shoot  them  down  with  bullets,  and  could 
undertake  all  the  concentrated  wickedness  and  agony  which  accom- 
pany war  from  beginning  to  end,  and  still  maintain  the  spirit 
which  he  had  when  he  went  into  a  solid,  religious  meeting,  he 
would  think,  and  perhaps  we  would  think,  war  was  right.  If  he 
held  the  inner  consciousness  of  rectitude  when  he  was  going 
through  these  operations,  then  I  believe  that  he  would  not  object 
to  war  unless  argument  could  be  framed  which  proved  war  to  lie 
inconsistent  with  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament. 

So  I  should  like  to  suggest  that  we  must  go  a  little  deeper  than 
sinij)le  moral  argument  in  order  to  justify  the  position  of  Friends 
with  regard  to  war.  We  must  bring  people  into  the  experience  in 
wjiich  war  to  them  becomes  impossible  because  it  is  so  foreign  to 
their  deep  personal,  spiritual  conviction.  That  state  of  mind  is  not 
usually  reached,  perhaps,  yet  a  very  little  distance  into  the  real  ex- 
perience of  Christianity  will  make  a  man  feel  more  and  more  that 
the  occasions  of  war  become  impossible  to  him. 

As  to  the  moral  side  of  the  question,  I  perfectly  agree  with  the 
writer  of  the  last  paper  that  the  moral  considerations  utterly  con- 
demn war;  that  its  inherent  immorality  is  so  manifest  that  a  per- 
son cannot  engage  in  it  if  he  is  conscious  of  the  fact  of  its  immor- 
ality and  also  is  obedient  to  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  I  would  suggest  that  there  is  a  kind  of  inherent  morality  in 
tJie  human  race,  which  is,  in  a  certain  way,  distinct  from  the  moral- 
ity of  the  New  Testament.  I  do  not  mean  that  it  is  contradictory 
to  it.  I  mean  it  would  have  arisen  if  the  New  Testament  had  never 
been  written.  Things  are  not  right,  or  wrong,  simply  because  they 
are  enjoined  or  forbidden  by  the  Bible.  The  injunctions  of  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  and  the  prohiljitions  of  the  Decalogue  would 
have  existed  in  a  measure  in  human  society,  constituted  as  it  is,  if 
there  had  never  been  any  Old  or  New  Testament.  It  is  impossi- 
ble for  society  to  arise  and  grow  up  without  certain  fundamental 
laws  lying  at  the  basis  of  it  which  must  evolve  and  develop  in  the 
course  of  the  process;  and  these  laws  are  just  as  immutable  and  cer- 
tain, though  they  are  perhaps  a  little  more  difficult  to  find  out,  as 
the  physical  laws  governing  the  universe.  When,  therefore,  we 
argue  against  war,  from  the  moral  point  of  view,  we  simply  say  that 
war  does  violence  to  human  nature  or  to  human  society.  It  is  im- 
possible for  the  highest  ideal  of  civilization  to  exist  and  at  the  same 
time  for  war  to  exist. 

War  is  prohibited  in  the  Bible.  As  to  the  New  Testament  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  doubt  about  it.  Indeed,  most  Christian 
writers  will  say  so  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  A  writer  in  this  after- 
noon's Bulletin,  who  has  a  very  interesting  article  upon  this  present 


50 

Conference,  practically  says  as  much.  Almost  any  one  in  the  po- 
sition of  this  writer,  who  has  looked  into  the  subject  carefully,  will 
admit  that  with  the  growing  sense  of  morality  of  the  human  race 
there  will  come  a  gradual  abolition  of  warfare. 

I  do  not  think  that  the  early  Friends  had  worked  out  the  moral 
and  economic  arguments  and  thus  reached  their  opposition  to  war. 
That  has  been  a  work  of  the  time  since  theirs.  War  can,  from  these 
points  of  view,  be  pronounced  inexpedient  and  wrong;  but  these 
Friends  were  not  profound  philosophers,  and  they  had  not  at  that 
time  all  the  moral  and  economic  arguments  at  their  command. 
The  early  Quakers  were  idealists.  It  did  not  make  any  particular 
difference  to  them  Avhat  were  going  to  be  the  results  of  their  theo- 
ries. This  is  something  in  which  we  make  so  great  a  mistake.  Peo- 
ple nowadays  say  wars  have  produced  beneficent  results.  They  say 
this  particular  war  looks  as  though  it  were  going  to  produce  benefi- 
cent results,  and  therefore  that  it  is  right.  But  that  was  not  at  all 
the  way  the  early  Friends  proceeded.  I  think  that  is  really  the  dif- 
ference between  the  way  in  which  Friends  have  approached  this 
subject  and  that  of  some  other  Christian  people.  The  early  Friends 
were  not  utilitarian.  They  did  not  feel  that  any  amount  of  good  re- 
sults would  prove  the  rightfulness  of  war. 

We  hear  that  argument  again  and  again:  "Did  not  the  Revo- 
lutionary War  produce  independence?  Did  not  the  Civil  War  de- 
stroy slavery?  Have  not  good  things  come  from  all  war?  Did  not 
our  late  war  free  Cuba?"  We  shall  have  to  give  an  affirmative 
answer  to  these  inquiries.  But  that  is  not  the  question.  We  must 
go  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  We  as  Friends  will  have  to  abandon 
such  arguments  as  our  main  stock  in  trade.  We  shall  have  to  go 
back  to  the  position  of  George  Fox,  that  war  is  of  a  spirit  which  is 
not  in  acordance  with  the  best,  most  sanctified,  human  spirits — hu- 
man spirits  illuminated  and  transformed  by  the  Spirit  of  God;  that 
there  is  deep  down  in  the  human  heart  a  spirit  of  eternal  justice 
and  right  which  renders  war  unhallowed,  whatever  its  causes  and 
occasions. 

From  this  point  of  view  war  is  seen  to  be  wrong,  not  because  it 
produces  bad  results,  not  because  in  certain  cases  it  produces  suf- 
fering, but  because  it  is  in  violation  of  the  eternal  principles  of 
right,  because  the  spirit  of  God  says  to  the  spirit  of  man  that  the 
spirit  of  war  is  entirely  incongruous  with  it.  When  George  Fox 
said  that  he  had  come  into  the  spirit  which  took  away  the  occasion 
of  war.  he  gave  us  the  root  principle  on  which  we  must  build  our 
funrlamental  argument  against  war.  Let  us  buttress  it  around  a« 
much  as  wo  can  with  all  these  economic  considerations,  these 
arguments  about  the  immorality  of  war  as  contrasted  with  the  New 
Testament  standards;  but  let  us  hold  fast  to  this  central  principle 
of  Quakerism  with  regard  to  war,  a  principle  which  is  goin?  to  out- 
live all  these  other  arguments  and  which  is  going  to  carry  the  So- 
ciety of  Friends  on  to  victory,  on  this  subject,  at  lea.st. 


51 

TiiK  Ciiaikman:  Our  friend  James  Wood  lias  witli  liim  a  copy 
of  tlie  address  which  the  Friends  presented  to  President  Washing- 
ton at  the  opening  of  his  administration.  It  is  an  extremely  good 
statement  of  the  Friends'  ground  upon  the  subject  of  war,  and  it 
seems  altogether  ap])ropriate  to  read  it  now. 

James  Wood:  This  address  was  presented  on  the  10th  day  of 
Third  month,  1789,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States: 


ADDRESS  OF  TUK  FRIENDS  TO  PRESIDENT   WASHINGTON  IN  1789. 

To  the  President  of  the  United  States: 

The  address  of  the  religions  Society  eaUed  Quakers,  from  their  Yearly 
Meeting  for  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Delaware  and  the  western  parts  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia : 

Heing  met  in,  this  our  annual  Assembly,  for  the  well  ordering  of  the 
afTairs  of  our  Religious  Society,  and  the  promotion  of  universal  righteous- 
ness, our  minds  have  been  drawn  to  consider  t'lat  the  Almighty,  who 
ruleth  in  Heaven,  and  in  the  kingdoms  of  men,  having  permitted  a  great 
revolution  to  take  place  in  the  government  of  this  country,  we  are  fer- 
vently concerned  that  the  rulers  of  the  people  may  be  favored  witli  the 
counsel  of  (Jod,  the  only  sure  means  of  enabling  them  to  fulfill  the  im- 
jiortant  trust  committed  to  their  charge,  and  in  an  especial  manner,  that 
divine  wisdom  and  grace,  vouched  from  above,  may  qualify  thee  to  fill  all 
the  duties  of  the  exalted  station  to  which  thou  art  appointed. 

We  are  sensible  thou  hast  attained  great  place  in  the  esteem  and  affec- 
tions of  people  of  all  denominations  over  whom  thou  presidest,  and 
many  eminent  talents  being  committed  to  thy  trust,  we  much  desire  they 
may  be  fully  devoted  to  the  Lord's  honor  and  service,  that  thus  thou 
mayest  be  a  happy  instrument  in  His  hand,  for  the  suppression  of  vice, 
infidelity  and  irreligion,  and  every  species  of  oppression  on  the  persons 
or  consciences  of  men,  so  that  righteousness  and  peace,  which  truly  ex- 
alt a  nation,  may  ])revail  throughout  the  land,  as  the  only  solid  foundation 
of  this  or  any  country. 

The  free  toleration  which  the  citizens  of  these  States  enjoy  in  the  pub- 
lic worship  of  the  Almighty,  agreeable  to  the  dictates  of  their  consciences, 
we  esteem  among  the  choicest  of  blessings,  and,  as  we  desire  to  be  filled 
v.ith  fervent  charity  for  those  who  difTer  from  us  in  matters  of  faith  and 
practice,  believing  that  the  general  assembly  of  saints  is  composed  of  the 
sincere  and  upright  hearted  of  all  nations,  kingdoms  and  people,  so,  we 
trust,  we  may  justly  claim  it  from  others,  and  in  a  full  persuasion  that 
the  divine  principle  we  profess  leads  unto  harmony  and  concord,  we  can 
take  no  jiart  in  carrying  on  wai',  on  any  occasion,  or  mider  any  power, 
but  are  bound  in  conscience  to  live  quiet  and  peaceable  lives,  in  godliness 
and  honesty,  amongst  men,  contributing  freely  our  portion  to  the  indi- 
gencies of  the  poor,  and  the  necessary  support  of  civil  government,  ac- 
knowledging those  that  rule  well  to  be  worthy  of  double  honor ;  and  if 
any  professing  with  us  are  or  have  been  of  a  contrary  disposition  and 
conduct,  we  own  them  not  therein,  liaving  never  been  chargeable  from 
our  first  establishment  as  a  Religious  Society,  with  fomenting  or  coun- 
tenancing tumults,  or  conspiracies,  or  disrespect  to  those  who  are  placed 
in  authority  over  us. 

We  wish  not  improperly  to  intrude  on  thy  time  or  patience,  nor  is  it 
our  practice  to  offer  adulation  to  any,  but,  as  we  are  a  people  whose  prin- 
ciples and  conduct  have  been  misrepresented  and  traduced,  we  take  the 
liberty  to  assure  thee  that  we  feel  our  hearts  affectionately  drawn  toward 
thee  and  those  in  authority  over  us,  with  prayers  that  thy  presidency  maj', 


52 

under  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  be  happy  to  thyself,  and  to  the  people,  Ihat 
through  the  increase  of  morality  and  true  religion,  divine  providence  may 
condescend  to  look  down  upon  our  land  with  a  propitious  eye,  and  blesa 
the  inhabitants  with  the  continuance  of  peace,  the  dew  of  heaven,  and  the 
fatness  of  the  earth,  and  enable  us  gratefully  to  acknowledge  his  manifold 
mercies,  and  it  is  our  earnest  concern  that  he  may  be  pleased  to  grant 
thee  every  necessary  qualification  to  fill  thy  weighty  and  important  station 
to  his  glory,  and  that  finally,  when  all  terrestrial  honors  shall  fail  and 
pass  away,  thou  and  thy  respectable  consort  may  be  found  worthy  to  re- 
ceive a  crown  of  unfading  righteousness  in  the  mansions  of  peace  and 
joy  forever. 

Signed  in  and  on  behalf  of  the  said  Meeting,  held  in  Philadelphia  by 
adjournments  from  the  28th  of  the  Ninth  month  to  the  3d  day  of  the 
Tenth  month,  inclusive,  17S0. 

Nicholas  Waln,  Clerk. 

You  will  bear  in  mind  that  this  was  immediately  after  the  Eev- 
ohitionary  War,  when  Friends  had  the  most  trying  experience;  and 
this  was  the  first  official  statement  of  the  position  of  the  Friends 
that  had  been  made.  It  is  certainly  an  admirable  document,  and 
contains  as  complete  a  statement  of  the  conception  of  the  early 
Friends  in  regard  to  war,  which  we  are  discussing  this  afternoon, 
as  I  have  seen. 

Perhaps  it  may  not  be  amiss  td  read  George  Washington's  reply. 

The  answer  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  address  of  the 
Religious  Society  called  Quakers,  from  their  Yearly  Meeting  for  Pennsyl- 
vania,  New   .Jersey,   Delaware   and   the   western  parts   of   Maryland   and 
Virginia. 
Gentlemen: 

I  receive  with  pleasure  your  affectionate  address,  and  thank  you  for  the 
friendly  sentiments  and  good  wishes  which  you  express  for  the  success  of 
niy  administration  and  for  my  personal  happiness. 

We  have  reason  to  rejoice  in  the  prospect  that  the  national  government, 
which,  by  the  favor  of  divine  providence,  was  formed  by  the  common 
councils  and  peaceably  established  with  the  common  consent  of  the  people, 
will  prove  a  blessing  tc  every  denomination  of  them;  to  render  it  such 
my  best  endeavors  shall  not  be  wanting.  Government  being,  among  other 
purposes,  instituted  to  protect  the  persons  and  consciences  of  men  from 
oppression,  it  certainly  is  the  duty  of  rulers  not  only  to  abstain  from  it 
themselves,  but  according  to  their  station  to  prevent  it  in  others. 

The  liberty  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  these  States  of  worshipping  Al- 
mighty God  agreeably  to  their  consciences  is  not  only  among  the  choicest 
of  their  blessings,  but  also  of  their  rights,  while  men  performing  social 
duties  faithfully  do  all  that  society  or  the  Stats  can  with  propriety 
expect  or  demand,  and  remain  responsible  only  to  their  Maker  for  the 
religion  or  mode  of  faith  which  they  may  prefer  or  profess.  Your  prin- 
ciples and  conduct  are  well  known  to  me,  and  it  is  doing  the  people  called 
(Quakers  no  more  than  justice  to  say  that  (except  their  declining  to  share 
with  others  the  burden  of  the  common  defence)  there  is  no  denomination 
among  us  who  are  more  exemplary  and  useful  citizens.  I  assure  you  very 
explicitly  that  in  my  opinion  the  conscientious  scruples  of  all  men  should 
be  treated  with  gieat  delicacy  and  tenderness,  and  it  is  my  wish  and  de- 
sire that  the  laws  may  always  be  as  extensively  accommodated  to  them 
as  a  due  regard  to  the  protection  and  essential  interests  of  the  nation  may 
justify  and  permit. 

[Signed]  George  Washington. 


53 

I  will  state  that  the  manuscript  of  this  address,  with  the  reply, 
was  found  among  old  papers  at  the  Twentieth  Street  Friends' 
Meeting  House,  New  York,  on  First-day  of  this  week,  by  David 
S.  Tabor.  The  reply  of  George  Washington  purports  to  have  the 
genuine  signature  of  our  first  President. 

Thk  Chaikmax:  We  will  take  up  now  the  discussion  of  the 
papers  that  have  been  read.  Our  friend,  ex-President  Magill,  of 
Swarthmore,  will  occupy  the  time  for  a  few  minutes. 

Edward  H.  Magill:  Among  the  many  excellent  things  which 
we  have  heard  this  afternoon,  nothing  impresses  me  more  deeply 
than  the  remark  of  our  friend  Mrs.  Chapman,  when  she  said,  in  re- 
gard to  the  common  saying,  "  War  is  a  necessary  evil  ":  "  There 
are  no  necessary  evils.  Evils  are  not  necessary."'  War  is  neces- 
sarily an  evil;  that  is  the  way  it  should  read.  I  was  reminded  of 
an  address  that  I  listened  to  with  great  satisfaction  in  this  city,  a 
few  years  ago,  on  "  Evolution  versus  Eevolution,"  in  which  the 
speaker  took  the  ground  that  our  two  wars — our  W^ar  of  the  Ee- 
bellion  and  our  Eevolutionary  War — were  both  of  them  avoidable. 
The  speaker  was  Andrew  D.  White.  He  said  in  regard  to  those 
two  cases  something  like  this:  ""  The  Eebellion — the  War  of  the 
Eebellion — was  a  political  blunder.  It  had  been  proposed  to  bu} 
the  slaves,  but  the  objection  was  made  that  it  would  cost  many 
millions  to  buy  them.  Yet  the  war  cost  far  more,  besides  the  enor- 
mous loss  of  life.  "  It  could,"  he  said,  ''  all  have  been  avoided  by 
taking  the  advice  of  those  moderate  men  in  that  early  day." 

Then  the  case  of  the  Eevolution,  which  I,  in  common  with  all 
the  rest  of  you,  have  always  been  taught,  Friends  as  we  are,  in  our 
schools,  in  our  histories — everywhere — to  consider  a  necessary  war. 
Dr.  White  argued  that  it  was  not  so.  He  said  that  Washington  and 
his  associates  w^ere  men  raised  up,  no  doubt,  for  the  special  pur- 
pose, and  who  accomplished  that  purpose  as  no  other  body  of  men, 
perhaps,  could  have  accomplished  it  so  well.  But  they  had  to  begin 
at  the  end  of  the  Eevolutionary  War  and  labor  for  years  to  get  the 
thirteen  States  to  unite.  If  that  labor — that  labor  of  diplomacy — 
had  been  begun  in  1T?5,  instead  of  1783,  it  might  have  secured  the 
separation  of  this  country  from  England  in  peace.  They  would 
have  accomplished  it.qnite  as  easily  as  they  brought  the  thirteen 
States  together  after  the  war  was  over.  Wars  never  settle  any- 
thing; they  only  put  the  coutestants  in  a  state  of  mind  so  that  they 
will  be  willing  to  try  to  settle  their  controversies.  If  they  had  only 
been  willing  beforehand,  in  the  beginning,  it  could  have  been  set- 
tled without  war. 

The  Chairman:  The  subject  now  is  open  for  general  discus- 
sion. 


54 

Anthony  M.  Kimbek:  Many  men  preach  the  thirteenth  chap- 
ter of  1  Corinthians;  but  may  we  comprehend  this  wonderful  chap- 
ter, the  wonderful  saying  in  it:  "  Charity  suffereth  long,  and  is 
kind."  May  the  Lord  help  us  to  be  faithful  in  this  ministry  of  suf- 
fering. Eespecting  the  second  essay,  I  remember  that  General 
Armstrong,  a  Christian  soldier,  many  years  ago  was  lecturing  to  his 
class  about  the  same  subject,  and  one  of  the  colored  men  asked  him 
how  it  could  be  reconciled  with  the  customs  and  rules  of  war,  and 
General  Armstrong  frankly  admitted  that  in  time  of  war  all  the 
moral  law  had  to  be  suspended. 

Joseph  Powell:  I  want  to  say  to  members  of  the  Society  of 
P'riends,  in  particular,  that  I  do  not  feel  so  proud  as  some  appear 
to  be  of  the  stand  we  have  taken  in  this  cause.  When  I  heard  what 
was  said  a  little  while  ago  about  buying  the  slaves  instead  of  fight- 
ing a  war,  I  remembered  that  it  was  not  a  Friend,  but  Elihu  Burritt 
who  advocated  that.  A  view  which  I  have  was  expressed  by  Presi- 
dent Sharpless  so  clearly  and  so  exactly  that  I  want  us  to  remem- 
ber what  he  said  and  take  it  to  heart.  I  know  Friends  who  say,  "  I 
am  a  member,  and  I  am  considered  as  good  a  member  as  any  ^we 
have,  probably."  They  think  so,  I  know.  But  they  say,  "  Prepare 
for  war."  although  they  profess  to  be  opposed  to  it.  They  cannot 
"mderstand,  seemingly,  the  condition  of  spirit  and  mind  that  Presi- 
dent Sharpless  has  spoken  of.  But  this  is  the  only  thing  that  will 
do.  We  may  say  what  we  please  in  the  way  of  opposition  to  war, 
but  it  amounts  to  little  unless  we  are  willing  to  bear  all  the  suf- 
fering and  all  that  is  unpleasant  that  may  come  upon  us  if  we  are 
loyal  to  that  profession. 

Samuel  S.  Ash:  I  have  just  a  word  in  harmony  with  the  ex- 
ercises of  the  afternoon.  We  do  not  get  all  of  our  peace  doctrine 
from  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel;  we  get  some  of  it  from  soldiers 
and  military  men.  I  recall  an  incident  which  took  place  in  my  boy- 
hood, when  I  was  making  a  visit  with  my  father,  who  was  a  physi- 
cian of  the  court.  We  visited  and  dined  with  a  captain,  and  at  the 
dimmer  table  my  father  remarked  that  the  only  excuse  he  could 
make  for  the  captain's  occupation  was  that  sometimes,  perhaps,  war 
was  a  necessary  evil.  The  captain  was  not  a  moment  in  respond- 
ing: "  Why,"  he  said,  "  Doctor,  I  am  a  better  Quaker  than  you 
are.    War  is  always  evil,  and  never  necessary." 

Davis  Fuknas:  I  was  very  much  interested  in  the  address  by 
President  Sharpless,  in  his  statement  that  there  is  in  every  soul 
something  that  teaches  him  what  is  right  about  war  as  about  other 
things.  I  believe  this  is  the  foundation  principle  of  Quakerism.  I 
l)elieve  that  the  Almighty  Creator  so  ordered  that  every  man  sliould 
have  that  which,  if  he  would  follow  it.  would  teach  him  the  right. 
I  once  had  an  interview  with  a  Hindoo,  and  found  that  he  had — 


55 

contrary  to  the  views  1  had  hold  about  the  Hindoos — just  as  clear 
views  about  many  things  that  are  wrong — al)()ut  drunkenness  and 
other  sins — as  those  who  have  been  educated  in  Christian  communi- 
ties. There  was  a  spark  of  divinity  in  him.  There  is  in  every  man 
that  which  is  sutficient  to  guide  him — about  war  as  about  other 
evils — if  he  is  only  obedient  to  it. 

Kicif  ARD  11.  Thomas:  1  have  been  very  much  interested  in 
what  1  have  heard  this  afternoon,  and  especially  agree  with  what 
Isaac  Sharpless  has  said  about  the  secondary  character  of  the  suf- 
fering and  the  expense  of  war.  The  fact  of  sutt'ering  is  no  good 
argument  at  all.  It  is  a  very  noble  thing  to  suffer  for  a  righteous 
cause.  If  all  that  war  implied  was  suffering  and  exi)ense  on  the 
part  of  those  who  sutl'ered  willingly,  there  would  be  a  great  deal  to 
be  said  in  favor  of  it.  Of  course,  the  fact  that  there  is  suffering 
would  make  it  a  very  serious  matter  and  a  thing  not  to  be  entered 
upon  without  thought;  but  the  mere  fact  of  suffering  may  be  an 
argument  in  favor  of  a  thing,  rather  than  against  it.  If  a  cause 
is  worthy,  every  one  of  us  ought  to  be  willing  to  suffer  for  it.  If 
I  thought  that  the  peace  principle  meant  that  I  was  to  hesitate  to 
suffer,  if  suffering  was  called  for,  I  should  despise  myself  and  cease 
to  be  a  peace  man.  Peace  principles  ought  to  be  based  not  on  ob- 
jection to  suffering,  but  on  objection  to  sin. 

When  it  comes  to  the  question  of  the  inherent  immorality  of 
war,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  it  is  not  a  secondary  matter.  What 
do  we  know  of  war?  War  is  not  a  mere  name.  What  does  it  con- 
sist of?  If  there  is  immorality  in  connection  with  it,  that  does  not 
necessarily  make  it  evil.  There  is,  possibly,  immorality  connected 
with  every  business.  There  is  a  possibility  of  disobeying  the  laws 
of  God  in  every  possible  line  of  activity  that  we  may  follow,  and 
yet  we  have  no  objection  to  these  lines  of  activity.  But  wdien 
anything  that  people  do  is  inherently  immoral,  then  the  immor- 
ality becomes  an  essential  feature  in  it.  Why  was  it  that  George 
Fox  had  this  experience  which  took  away  from  him  the  occasion 
of  all  wars?  It  was  because  something  had  happened  to  him;  be- 
cause he  had  yielded  himself  up  to  the  power  of  God,  to  let  that 
power  into  his  heart  which  had  made  him  able  to  be  strong  against 
all  that  was  contrary  to  the  will  of  God.  Why  is  war  contrary  to 
the  will  of  God  if  it  be  not  inherently  immoral?  If  it  were  in- 
herently moral  it  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  God.  It 
seems  to  me  that  if  we  can  once  show  to  Christian  people  that  it 
is  inherently  immoral,  as  the  paper  pointed  out  so  clearly,  we  have 
made  a  very  great  step  forward.  This  is  not  a  side  consideration; 
it  is  an  essential  element  in  the  question.  It  is  because  war  arouses 
the  passions  that  make  earth  hell;  it  is  because  it  is  contrary  to  the 
law  of  God. — which  is  the  highest  immorality, — that  we  are  op- 
posed to  it.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  very 
great  importance  that  we  should  see  the  clear-cut  lines  of  argument, 


56 

and  that  one  of  the  important  and  necessary  ones  is  that  war  is 
inherently  immoral. 

The  Chairman:  We  have  now  very  fairly  discussed  these  im- 
portant questions,  and  the  Chair,  therefore,  proposes  to  bring  this 
session  to  a  close  in  a  very  few  minutes. 

The  Committee  on  Entertainment  will  be  glad  to  see  any  who 
are  not  yet  provided  with  homes.  The  Business  Committee,  which 
has  been  increased  by  the  addition  of  President  Edmund  Stanley, 
of  Kansas;  Esther  Pugh,  of  Indiana;  Robert  E.  Pretlow,  of  Ohio, 
and  P.  W.  Eaidabaugh,  of  Indiana,  will  hold  a  meeting  immedi- 
ately at  the  close  of  the  session.  This  evening  the  meeting  will 
convene  in  this  hall  at  8  o'clock  promptly.  President  Unthank,  of 
Wilmington  College,  Ohio,  will  preside,  and  the  program  as  pub- 
lished will  be  carried  out. 

One  of  the  newspapers  of  the  city  has  asked  the  privilege  of 
taking  a  photograph  of  the  Conference,  and,  as  there  seems  to  be 
no  objection,  it  is  hoped  that  you  will  all  be  willing  to  assist  the 
newspaper  people  to  get  a  satisfactory  picture. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  While  the  photographer  is  getting 
his  machine  ready  I  should  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
ference to  what  seems  to  me  one  of  the  most  hopeful  things  con- 
nected with  the  peace  cause — the  first  announcement  of  the  Nobel 
peace  prize. 

Alfred  Nobel,  of  Norway,  was  the  inventor  of  dynamite.  He 
did  not  invent  dynamite  for  war  purposes,  and  he  was  very  much 
troubled  that  it  had  been  turned  so  exclusively  to  war  ends.  He 
was  a  strong  peace  man;  in  his  will  he  left  millions  of  money,  the 
income  of  which  he  provided  should  be  annually  distributed  in 
five  prizes.  One  of  these  prizes  was  to  be  given  each  year  to  the 
individual,  or  society,  who  had  during  the  year  done  the  most  for 
the  promotion  of  international  arbitration  and  peace.  A  commit- 
tee of  the  Norwegian  Parliament  was  organized,  which  has  charge 
of  the  distribution  of  the  prizes.  The  first  prizes  were  announced 
day  before  yesterday.  They  amount  to  something  over  $40,000 
each.  The  peace  prize  this  year  was  given  to  two  men,  instead  of 
one.  One  of  these  men,  Henri  Dunant,  was  the  founder  of  the  Red 
Cross  work.  He  spent  his  whole  fortune  in  the  organization  and 
development  of  this  work.  He  is  now  a  very  old  man,  liv- 
ing in  a  private  hospital  near  Geneva,  Switzerland.  The  Nor- 
wegian Committee,  in  consideration  of  his  eminent  services  to  the 
cause  of  humanity  and  peace,  voted  that  he  should  have  half  of  the 
first  peace  price,  something  over  $20,000.  The  other  half  was 
awarded  to  the  veteran  of  the  peace  movement  in  France,  our 
friend,  Frederic  Passy,  who  has  spent  more  than  thirty  years  in 
developing  the  peace  propaganda  in  his  country.     He  well  deserves 


this  recognition  of  his  eminent  and  long-continued  services  to  the 
cansc.  The  awarding  at  this  time  of  this  vahialile  prize  is  cer- 
tainly a  most  encouraging  proof  of  the  progress  which  the  peace 
movement  has  made,  and  of  the  public  confidence  which  it  has  won 
and  now  holds. 

The  meeting  then  adjourned. 


^bir^  Seesion. 

Fifth-day  Evening,  Twelfth  Month  12th. 


The  Conference  reassembled  at  8  p.m.  with  James  B.  Unthank, 
president  of  Wilmington  College,  Ohio,  in  the  Chair. 


o> 


The  Chaieman:  I  shall  not,  on  taking  the  chair  this  evening 
make  any  extended  remarks.  I  wish  only  to  call  attention  to  one 
matter.  I  have  been  very  much  surprised  in  the  last  few  weeks  to 
learn  something  about  the  Friends  that  I  never  knew  before;  and 
that  is,  that  they  are  in  a  certain  sense  Anarchists.  I  do  not  know 
whether  you  knew  that  or  not;  but  it  was  a  piece  of  information  to 
me.  It  comes,  also,  from  very  high  authority  that  we  Quakers  are 
Anarchists.  I  thought  we  had  always  been,  for  the  whole  period 
of  our  existence,  a  law-abiding  people;  that  we  had  been  credited 
with  even  too  much  loyalty  to  government.  We  have  been  criti- 
cized because  we  do  not  object  to  things  in  a  forcible  way;  but  we 
have  never  before,  to  my  knowledge,  been  charged  with  disbelieving 
in  government,  ^ow  comes  a  great  metropolitan  weekly  and  says 
that  Friends  are  to  a  certain  extent  Anarchists;  and,  upon  having 
the  matter  called  in  question  and  denied,  it  reiterates  the  assertion, 
and  says  that  we  are  Anarchists  because  we  do  not  believe  in  parti- 
cipating in  war  when  the  government  is  in  a  struggle.  I  do  not 
give  the  name  of  this  religious  paper,  because  it  would  be  invidious; 
but  this  paper  believes  in  war,  and  I  do  not  know  what  war  does 
but  suspend  all  the  functions  of  peaceable  government  and  intro- 
duce a  state  of  anarchy.  I  cannot  understand  how  it  is  that 
Friends  are  Anarchists  and  the  believers  in  war  are  so  thoroughly 
loyal  to  government  and  so  much  opposed  to  anarchy,  when  war 
itself  introduces  into  the  country  and  into  the  community  a  state  of 
anarchy.  The  objection,  at  least,  is  not  very  consistent.  I  recom- 
mend this  matter  to  the  Business  Committee,  that  they  may  con- 
sider whether  it  will  not  be  wise  for  us,  in  our  resolutions,  to  de- 
clare, for  the  information  of  those  who  know  nothing  of  our  his- 
tory, that  we  believe  in  human  government. 

We  will  now  proceed  with  the  program  of  the  evening.  The 
first  exercise  is  a  paper  upon  ''  Early  Christianity  and  War,"  by 
James  Wood,  of  Mount  Kisco,  N.  Y. 


59 

EARLY  CHRISTIANITY   AND  WAR. 

BY  JAMES   WOOD,   MT.   KISCO,  N.  Y. 

The  battle  of  Actiuni,  followed  l)y  the  death  of  Antoiiius.  31 
B.  C,  closed  the  long  series  of  conflicts  in  the  Roman  empire  l)y 
which  Cains  Jnlius  Caesar  Octavianus  gained  his  supreme  position, 
and  led  to  his  receiving  the  name  of  Augustus,  never  before  ])ome 
bv  any  one.  From  that  date  the  empire  continued  to  enjoy  pro- 
found internal  traiu]uillity  until  Augustus  died  in  the  seventy-fifth 
year  of  his  age  and  the  fourteenth  of  the  Christian  era.  Thus  the 
Prince  of  Peace  entered  upon  his  mission  when  the  temple  of  Janus 
was  closed,  as  it  had  been  since  29  B.  C,  when  Augustus  performed 
the  ceremony  of  closing  it  for  the  third  time  in  all  Roman  history. 

"  Xo  war,  or  battle's  sound 
Was  heard  the  world  around; 
The  idle  spear  and  shield  were  high  up  hung; 
The  hooked  chariot  stood 
Unstam'd  with  hostile  blood; 
The  trumpet  spake  not  to  the  armSd  throng; 
And  kings  sat  still  with  awful  eye, 
As  if  they  surely  knew  their  sov'reign  Lord  was  by." 

For  a  century  and  a  half  the  policy  inaugurated  by  Augustus 
secured  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  empire.  Even  the  follies 
and  excesses  of  Gains,  Claudius,  and  Nero  did  little  harm  ])eyond 
Italy  itself,  while  the  rule  of  Vespasian  repaired  the  damages  in- 
flicted by  the  wars  of  the  rival  emperors  after  Nero's  death,  and 
the  abilities  of  Trajan,  Hadrian  and  Antoninus  secured  tranquillity 
and  good  government,  and  spread  the  beneficent  influences  of  Ro- 
man law  and  civilization.  Thus  Christianity  was  established  under 
remarkably  favorable  conditions  of  peace  and  prosperity,  and  its 
early  adherents  were  spared  the  fiery  trials  that  an  earlier  century 
would  inevitably  have  placed  before  them.  Parthians  and  Medes, 
and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  and  in  Judea  and 
Cappadocia,  in  Pontus,  and  Asia,  Phrygia  and  Pamphylia,  in 
Egypt  and  in  the  parts  of  Libya  about  Cyrene,  and  strangers  of 
Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretes  and  Arabians  returned  from 
Jerusalem  to  their  various  homes  after  the  day  of  Pentecost  in 
peace  and  safety,  with  the  glad  tidings  of  what  they  had  seen  and 
heard.  Subsequently  apostles  and  teachers  went  whither  they 
would  in  unaccustomed  security.  While  garrisons  were  main- 
tained throughout  the  empire  the  people  were  not  subjected  to  that 
stress  of  pressure  for  military  service  that  was  always  inseparal)U; 
from  a  time  of  war,  and  the  doctrine  of  peace  and  goodwill  could 
be  promulgated  with  a  freedom  and  earnestness  that  the  ordinary 
conditions  of  the  empire  would  not  have  permitted.  It  was  doubt- 
less owing  to  this  that  in  the  earliest  period  of  Christianity  we  learn 
of  its  followers'  position  in  regard  to  war  only  in  the  statement  of 
principles. 


60 

Marcus  Aurelius  died  in  180,  and  his  death  was  followed  by  a 
century  of  war  and  disorder.  Thronghont  the  third  century  the 
Eoman  world  witnessed  a  series  of  desperate  conflicts  between  rival 
claimants  for  the  imperial  purple,  so  that,  between  the  death  of 
Servius  in  211  and  the  accession  of  Diocletian  in  284,  twenty-three 
emperors  sat  in  the  seat  of  Augustus,  and  all  of  these  but  one  died 
violent  deaths  in  battle  or  at  the  hands  of  the  mutinous  soldiery, 
and  this  one  died  of  pestilence.  Beside  all  this,  the  vigor  of  the 
north  had  begun  its  assaults  upon  the  decaying  strength  of  Rome. 
The  favorable  conditions  for  the  establishment  and  growth  of  the 
early  church  during  the  Augustan  age,  and  the  period  that  imme- 
diately followed  it,  were  succeedediby  new  conditions  which  se- 
verely tried  the  patience  and  the  faith  of  the  followers  of  Christ, 
and  called  upon  them  to  stand  firm  in  their  devotion  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  cause  they  had  espoused.  Like  other  periods  of  sore 
trial  the  weak  were  sifted  out  from  the  strong,  and  left  the  body 
steadfast  in  the  heroic  courage  of  a  transforming  faith. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the  early  Christians'  opposition  to 
war  was  based  primarily  upon  the  teachings  of  the  gospel,  and 
after  that  upon  the  fact  that  the  military  oath  was  distinctly  pagan 
and  many  military  practices  were  mixed  with  idolatrous  rites. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome  under  Marcus 
Aurelius  about  the  year  165,  says  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho: 
"  We,  who  were  once  full  of  war  and  mutual  slaughter,  have  every 
one  through  the  whole  earth  changed  our  swords  into  ploughshares, 
and  our  spears  into  implements  of  tillage,  and  now  cultivate  piety, 
righteousness,  charity,  faith  and  hope,  which  we  have  from  the 
Father  Himself  through  Him  who  was  crucified."  It  is  quite 
probable  that  Justin's  words — "  every  one  through  the  whole 
earth  " — must  not  be  taken  too  literally,  but  should  be  understood 
to  mean  that  every  one  who  has  truly  learned  the  gospel  knows 
that  these  things  should  be.  The  same  early  Father  in  the  Church 
in  his  first  Apology,  chapter  39,  after  quoting  the  prophecy  of 
Isaiah  respecting  the  going  forth  of  the  word  of  God  from  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  consequent  prevalence  of  a  state  of  peace,  says: 
"  That  these  things  have  come  to  pass  you  may  be  readily  con- 
vinced; for  twelve  men,  destitute  both  of  instruction  and  of  elo- 
quence, went  forth  from  Jerusalem  into  the  world,  and  by  the 
power  of  God  gave  evidence  to  every  description  of  persons  that 
they  were  sent  by  Christ  to  teach  all  men  the  divine  word;  and  we, 
who  were  once  slayers  of  one  another,  do  not  fight  against  our 
enemies." 

Irenaeus,  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  also  one  of  the  earliest 
Fathers,  discusses  the  same  prophecy,  and  proves  its  relation  to  our 
Saviour  by  the  fact  that  the  followers  of  Jesus  had  abandoned  the 
weapons  of  war  and  no  longer  knew  how  to  fight. 

The  early  Church  soon  found  that  schools  or  sects  were  formed 
among  its  members.     The  Gnostics  were  the  earliest  of  these,  of 


61 

\\  hoiii  Gibbon  says:  "'  They  were  the  most  polite,  the  most  learned 
and  tlie  most  wealthy  of  the  Christian  name."  Very  different 
from  this  was  the  body  of  Montanists.  They  have  too  frequently 
been  judged  by  the  testimony  of  their  opponents  who  disliked  the 
sound  and  simple  views  which  the  Montanists  held  of  tlie  priestly 
dignity  of  all  Christians,  and  that  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  arc  not 
confined  to  one  order  in  the  Church,  or  even  to  one  sex,  and  tliat 
the  true  successors  of  the  apostles  are  those  who  receive  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  from  the  Holy  Ghost  himself.  The  teachings  of  the 
Montanists  had  a  marked  influence  upon  the  great  Tertullian,  who 
himself  so  shaped  the  form  and  policy  of  the  Western  Church.  In 
his  earlier  writings  he  seems  to  have  thought  that  military  service 
might  be  recognized,  since  in  his  ''Apology,"  a  pre-Montanist  work, 
he  says,  in  Chapter  XXX.:  "We  pray  for  protection  to  the  im- 
perial house  for  brave  armies."  Sul)sequently  Tertullian  was  very 
clear  and  explicit.  In  the  "  Soldiers'  Chaplet "  he  says:  "  We  must 
first  inquire  whether  warfare  is  proper  for  Christians.  Shall  it  be 
held  lawful  to  make  an  occupation  of  the  sword,  when  the  Lord 
])roclaims  that  he  who  uses  the  sword  shall  perish  by  the  sword? 
Shall  the  son  of  peace  take  part  in  the  battle,  when  it  does  not  be- 
come liim  even  to  sue  at  law?  "  Again,  when  writing  "  On  Idolatry," 
he  says:  "  You  inquire  whether  a  believer  may  enter  the  military 
service,  and  whether  soldiers  are  to  be  admitted  into  the  faith. 
How  will  a  Christian  man  war  without  a  sword  which  the  Lord  has 
taken  away?     In  disarming  Peter  he  unbelted  every  soldier." 

We  have  evidence  of  the  position  of  the  early  Christians  con- 
cerning war  by  the  writings  of  their  opponents  and  persecutors. 
Prominent  among  these  was  Celsus,  an  Epicurean,  who  wrote  his 
'■  Word  of  Truth  "  about  160  during  the  reign  of  Marcus  Anrelius. 
He  objects  that  the  state  received  no  help  from  the  Christians 
either  in  civil  government  or  war,  and  that  if  all  men  were  to  fol- 
low their  example,  the  sovereign  would  be  deserted,  and  the  world 
would  fall  into  the  hands  of  barbarians.  We  know  of  the  writings 
of  Celsus  only  through  those  of  Origen,  who,  nearly  a  century  later, 
wrote  a  refutation  of  the  former's  criticisms.  Origen  replied: 
••'  The  question  is  what  would  happen  if  the  Romans  should  be  per- 
suaded to  adopt  the  principles  of  the  Christians,  to  renounce  the 
service  now  rendered  the  gods  and  magistrates,  and  to  worship  the 
Most  High.  This  is  my  answer.  We  say  that  if  two  of  us  shall 
agree  on  earth  as  touching  anything  that  they  shall  ask,  it  shall  be 
done  for  them  of  the  Father  of  the  just,  who  is  in  heaven.  What, 
then,  are  we  to  expect,  if  not  only  a  very  few  should  agree,  as  at 
present,  but  the  whole  empire  of  Rome?  They  would  pray  to  the 
Word,  who  of  old  said  to  the  Hebrews,  when  pursued  by  the 
Egyptians.  '  The  Lord  shall  fight  for  you  and  ye  shall  hold  your 
peace,'  and  if  all  should  unite  in  prayer  with  one  accord,  they  would 
put  to  flight  enemies  far  more  numerous  than  were  discomfited  by 
the  prayer  of  Moses  and  of  those  who  prayed  with  him.     If  all  the 


62 

Romans  should  embrace  the  Christian  faith  they  would  overcome 
their  enemies  by  prayer;  or,  rather,  they  would  not  go  to  war  at 
all,  being  guarded  by  that  divine  power  which  promised  to  save  five 
whole  cities  for  the  sake  of  fifty  Just  persons." 

Surely  the  doctrine  of  peace  is  here  placed  upon  lofty  ground. 
In  this  work  against  Celsus,  Origen  says  of  himself  and  his  ])retli- 
ren:  "  We  no  longer  take  up  the  sword  against  any  nation,  nor  do 
we  learn  any  more  to  make  war.  We  have  become,  for  the  sake  of 
Jesus,  the  children  of  peace."  Again,  alluding  to  the  efficacy  of 
prayer,  he  says:  "  By  such  means  we  fight  for  our  King  abundantly, 
but  we  take  no  part  in  his  wars,  even  though  he  urge  us." 

This  general  position  continued  to  be  maintained  a  century 
later.  During  the  reign  of  Diocletian,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century,  Lactantius  insisted  upon  the  absolute  inviolability 
of  human  life  and  the  unlawfulness  of  war.  He  adds:  "  To  engage 
in  war  cannot  be  lawful  for  the  righteous  man,  whose  warfare  is 
that  of  righteousness  itself."  The  edition  of  the  "  Canons  of  Alex- 
andria "  used  by  the  Ethiopian  Christians  stated:  "It  is  not  meet 
for  Christians  to  bear  arms." 

Many  citations  might  be  made  from  Eusebius,  the  father  of 
ecclesiastical  history,  to  further  prove  the  position  of  the  early 
Christians  concerning  war,  but  the  chain  we  have  given  from  Justin 
Martyr  to  the  fourth  century  is  sufficient.  It  is  a  matter  of  great 
interest  that  in  the  time  of  Constantine,  while  the  church,  recog- 
nizing that  its  practice  had  violated  its  old-time  doctrines  and  many 
professed  Christians  served  in  the  army,  there  yet  was  an  expecta- 
tion that  it  would  return  to  the  true  ground.  The  twelfth 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice  over  which  Constantine  himself  pre- 
sided, provided  a  long  period  of  excommunication  for  those  who  in 
the  ardor  of  their  early  faith  renounced  the  military  calling,  but 
afterward  were  bribed  to  return  to  it.  Alas,  during  that  reign  of 
Constantine,  Christian  virtue  so  weakened  that  it  surrendered  to 
the  world,  and  the  many  evils  entered  the  church  which  have  so 
long  undermined  its  power. 

Among  numerous  instances  where  individual  Christians  re- 
fused to  engage  in  military  service  because  of  the  teachings  of 
Christ,  one  will  suffice.  The  account  is  given  in  Ruinart's  "Acta 
Sincera,"  and  has  good  historic  proof.  In  A.  D.  295,  at  Teveste, 
an  episcopal  city  in  jSTumidia,  the  recruiting  sergeant  brought  be- 
fore Dion,  the  Proconsul,  a  young  man  of  twenty-two  years,  one 
Maximilian,  as  fit  for  military  duty.  As  he  was  about  to  be  meas- 
ured, he  said:  "  I  cannot  engage  in  military  service;  I  am  a  Chris- 
tian." He  repeated:  "  I  cannot  fight;  I  am  a  Christian."  Again 
he  said:  "  I  will  not  serve.  You  may  cut  off  my  head  if  you  will. 
I  cannot  engage  in  earthly  warfare;  I  am  God's  soldier."  Every 
argument  was  used  to  persuade  him  to  yield,  but  without  avail,  and 
every  threat  was  made,  and  he  triumphantly  gave  up  his  life  for 
the  testimony  of  him  whom  he  loved. 


(j;5 

Eusebius  gives  a  number  of  instances  wbere  Christians  refused 
to  serve  in  the  army  because  of  pagan  and  idolatrous  requirements. 
One  of  these  was  a  centurion  named  Marcellus.  The  legion  to 
which  he  belonged  was  holding  a  sacrificial  feast  in  honor  of  one 
of  the  Caesars.  Marcellus  rose  from  the  mess-table,  and,  unclasp- 
ing his  military  belt,  threw  it  down,  exclaiming:  *'  From  this  mo- 
ment I  cease  to  serve  your  empire  as  a  soldier.  I  am  resolved  to 
obey  none  but  Jesus  Christ,  the  eternal  King.  I  despise  the  wor- 
ship of  your  gods.  Since  the  ser^'ice  involves  the  obligations  of 
sacrificing  to  the  gods  and  emperors,  I  renounce  the  standards,  and 
am  a  soldier  no  longer."  He  was  condemned  to  death  and  be- 
headed. 

Another  instance  was  that  of  Marinus,  a  Christian  soldier  of 
Csesarea,  who  was  about  to  receive  promotion  to  centurion  rank, 
but  would  not  sacrifice  to  the  emperor. 

There  is  a  legend  familiar  to  readers  of  church  history  that  pur- 
ports to  show  the  determination  of  Christian  soldiers  not  to  violate 
their  consciences,  nor  to  aid  in  the  persecution  of  their  brethren. 
The  story  of  the  Theban  Legion,  consisting  of  6,600  men,  all  Chris- 
tians, has  often  been  told,  but  its  authenticity  is  very  questionable. 
It  is  said  they  were  summoned  from  the  East  for  the  service  of 
Maximian  in  Gaul.  When  in  the  valley  of  the  upper  Rhone  they 
found  they  were  to  be  used  in  the  persecution  of  the  Christians,  and 
they  refused  to  obey  the  emperor's  commands.  Their  commander, 
Mauricius,  and  all  the  legion  were  put  to  death.  The  story  is  re- 
ferred to  A.  D.  286.  At  that  time  Maximian  was  associated  with 
Diocletian,  and  there  was  then  no  persecution  nor  was  there  any  in 
Gaul  during  his  reign.  The  documentary  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
legend  is  very  weak.  There  was  no  recorded  mention  of  it  until  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  afterward.  The  story  is  similar. to  one  in 
Syria,  where  a  Greek  martyr  of  the  same  name  suffered  the  same 
fate.  Again,  it  is  alleged  that  the  Theban  Legion  suffered  in  that 
year  at  the  spot  where  is  now  the  City  of  Cologne  on  the  Rhine, 
and  where  the  Church  of  St.  Gereon,  named  for  the  commander, 
commemorates  their  martyrdom.  It  may  be  that  the  Theban  Legion, 
and  their  suffering  on  the  Rhine  and  on  the  Rhone,  belong  to  the 
same  historic  classification  with  St.  Ursula  and  her  ten  thousand 
virgins,  whose  bones  we  see  in  another  church  in  Cologne. 

But  we  must  not  suppose  that  there  was  equal  faithfulness  on 
the  part  of  all  who  made  profession  of  Christianity.  Passages  in 
Tertullian  show  there  were  professing  Christians  in  the  army  in  the 
second  century,  and  P^usebius  shows  there  were  others  at  a  later 
period,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  reliable  evidence  that  these  were 
in  any  considerable  numbers  at  any  time.  The  story  of  the  Thun- 
dering Legion  has  often  been  used  as  furnishing  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  the  Christians  of  the  second  centur\^  united  with  their 
fellow  subjects  in  serving  the  emperor  in  the  field.  We  are  told 
that  during  the  war  with  the  Germans  and  Sarmatians  in  the  year 


64 

174,  Marcus  Aurelius  and  his  army  were  in  a  situation  of  great 
peril.  The  soldiers  were  without  water  and  were  tortured  with  in- 
tolerable thirst,  and  at  the  same  time  were  threatened  by  an  attack 
from  the  enemy.  In  this  extremity  the  Twelfth  Legion,  composed 
entirely  of  Christians,  fell  upon  their  knees,  and  their  prayer  was 
followed  by  a  shower  of  rain  which  allayed  the  thirst  of  the  Roman 
soldiers,  while  the  thunder  terrified  the  barbarians  so  that  a  com- 
plete victory  was  gained  over  them.  The  emperor,  to  commemorate 
the  event,  gave  the  name  of  "  Thundering  "  to  the  legion.  But  the 
narrative  will  not  bear  critical  examination.  The  legion  had  been 
called  "  Thundering  "  from  the  time  of  Augustus.  It  was  claimed 
that  the  emperor,  in  gratitude  for  the  signal  deliverance,  ordered 
the  persecution  of  the  Christians  to  cease.  That  there  was  a  re- 
markable deliverance  of  the  Roman  army  is  a  historic  fact,  but  the 
persecutions  alleged  did  not  begin  until  three  years  after  the  vic- 
tory. Pagan  writers  attributed  the  deliverance  to  Jupiter,  to  whom 
the  emperor  and  the  whole  pagan  army  prayed,  and  also  to  the  in- 
cantations of  an  Egyptian  magician.  It  is  probable  that  some  un- 
scrupulous person  started  a  similar  claim  for  the  ef&cacy  of  Chris- 
tian prayer. 

This  brief  examination  into  the  subject  of  early  Christianity 
and  war  shows  that  in  the  first  two  centuries  of  the  Christian  era 
the  followers  of  Christ  very  generally  practiced  the  spirit  of  His 
teachings,  and  were  obedient  to  His  commands  concerning  war,  and 
that  this  continued  with  a  modified  completeness  during  the  third 
century.  If  the  examination  was  continued  further  we  would  find 
that  the  occupation  of  the  throne  of  the  Roman  empire  by  a  pro- 
fessing Christian  in  the  person  of  Constantine  so  united  the  Church 
with  the  world,  that  the  rank  and  pomp  and  wealth  and  fashion  of 
the  latter  demoralized  the  Church  so  that  its  sacred  principles  were 
violated,  its  testimonies  were  neglected  or  trampled  under  foot, 
pagan  rites  and  usages  were  introduced  into  its  worship,  and  an  era 
of  decadence  was  inaugurated,  which  heroic  efforts  in  various 
periods  have  in  some  measure  stayed,  but  which  still  continue  to 
mar  the  Church's  efforts  and  to  hinder  her  sure  conquest  of  the 
world. 


The  Chairmax:  We  will  next  have  an  address  on  the  "  Atti- 
tude of  Christians  as  to  War  and  Peace."  by  Dr.  Jesse  H.  Holmes, 
of  Swarthmore  College. 


65 

THE  ATTITT^DK  01'  CIIRrSTlANS  AS  TO  PEACE  AND 

WAK. 

BY  JESSK  11.    IIOI.MI'.S.   IMI.l).,  SWARTHMORE  COLLEGE. 

riivisliatiity  iiu't  with  a  ixrcat  disaster  early  in  its  career — a  dis- 
aster lariicly  made  possible  by  its  rapid  spread — in  that  it  came 
to  be  oliieially  recognized  as  a  state  religion.  In  its  inception 
Christianity  was  particularly  marked  ])y  its  strong  appeal  to  the  in- 
dividual. We  cannot  in  our  day  fully  grasp  the  originality  dis- 
played by  its  founders  in  turning  their  backs  upon  gods  who  dealt 
with  mankind  by  the  wholesale,  as  races  or  nations,  and  turning  to 
God  who  speaks  to  the  individual  soul,  and  for  whom  not  the  na- 
tion, but  the  man,  is  the  unit.  Such  conception  is  not.  of  course,  a 
new  one  as  presented  by  Jesus  and  his  followers;  it  was  present  in 
the  minds  of  many  of  the  prophets,  and  was  not  unknown  among 
ancient  i)hilosophies. 

But  such  idea  of  God  was  fundamental  in  Christianity.  It  was 
not  to  Jews,  not  to  Gentiles,  not  to  rich  or  poor,  not  to  great  or 
small,  but  to  individual  men  that  was  preached  the  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  within  us.  For  three  centuries  it  made  its  way  amid 
l)ersecution  and  against  opposition,  passing  on  from  soul  to 
soul,  uplifting  the  slave  and  humbling  the  master,  illuminating 
the  wrecks  of  old  philosophies,  and  bringing  back  to  life  a 
zest  and  interest  which  it  had  in  large  measure  lost.  In  those 
three  centuries  it  had  honeycombed  the  Empire.  Slave  had  whis- 
pered the  gospel  to  his  fellow-slave,  or  perhaps  timidly  to  a  kindly 
master.  It  circulated  in  the  arteries  of  trade,  it  was  talked  in  the 
streets,  it  grew  even  when  hunted  into  the  catacombs.  In  all  this 
it  was  taught  only  as  man  to  man.  It  was  backed  by  no  great  offi- 
cial power,  but  represented  in  all  that  it  accomplished  its  own  na- 
tive force  and  energy.  Where  it  won  its  way  it  was  by  mastering 
the  consciences  of  men.  It  had  no  prizes  to  offer  by  which  to  tempt 
the  time-server.  Only  a  fervent  conviction  of  truth,  only  a  deadly 
(or,  rather,  a  truly  living)  earnestness  could  induce  men  to  ally 
themselves  with  a  proscribed  sect.  We  may  hardly  doubt  that  the 
Christian  Church  of  this  time  was  made  up  of  real  Christians;  they 
had  stood  the  test  of  fire,  and  with  only  a  natural  human  alloy  of 
baser  metal,  they  had  been  proved  sterling. 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  that  disaster  fell  upon  it  in 
the  form  of  an  unhoped-for  and  dazzling  success — the  Empire  be- 
came officially  Christian.  The  old  and  well-worn  temptation  re- 
jected by  Jesus  himself  was  now  offered  to  his  Church,  and  it  fell. 
"xVll  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  will  I  give  thee  "  might  have  been 
the  language  of  Constantine  when  he  made  the  Eoman  empire 
Christian  in  name.  And  what  great  things  might  not  the  Church 
of  the  Christ  do  Avith  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth?  The  vision 
of  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  so  dazzled  the  bishops  of  the 
fourth  century  that  they  forgot  to  notice  the  small  and  apparently 


66 

insignificant  condition  annexed,  "  If  thou  wilt  bow  down  and  wor- 
ship me."  Not  for  the  first  time  was  a  distinctive  price  unnoticed 
in  the  glory  of  immediate  possession.  Christianity  received  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth,  and  bowed  down  before  Satan.  Thence- 
forth there  were  princes  in  the  household  of  him  who  was  "meek 
and  lowly; "  thenceforth  Christianity  went  forth,  sword  in  hand, 
to  conquer  heathendom,  not  for  the  Christ-spirit,  but  for  a  nominal 
Christianity.  The  Church  turned  from  men  to  man.  It  baptized 
nations,  indeed,  after  it  had  conquered  them — baptizing  with  water 
— and,  indeed,  with  fire  also — but  neglecting  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Only  incidentally,  and  in  small  measure,  did  it 
spread  abroad  the  spirit  of  the  Master.  Those  methods  which  had 
made  Christianity  so  great  a  power  that  the  Empire  was  forced  to 
adopt  its  name  were  neglected  for  those  which  had  produced  the 
yery  weakness  under  which  the  Empire  suffered.  The  Church  chose 
the  way  of  the  devil  to  reach  the  ends  of  God,  taking  no  warning, 
as  it  might  for  the  very  ease  of  the  journey,  that  it  had  left  the 
straight  and  narrow  for  the  broad  and  easy  way. 

Christianity  broke  up  into  warring  sects.  It  dealt  with  princi- 
palities and  powers;  its  eye  became  keen  for  estates,  and  it  dealt  in 
souls  mainly  by  wholesale.  Almost  every  generation,  indeed,  has 
seen  small  groups  of  individuals  breaking  away  from  the  evil  of 
oflB.cial  religion,  and  striving  for  a  return  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity 
— to  a  direct  walk  with  God,  a  direct  communing  with  his  self- 
revealings.  But,  seeing  the  supreme  success  of  the  Masters  fail- 
ure, the  crown  of  martyrdom  is  no  longer  offered  beyond  a  certain 
point.  So  soon  as  Christianity  becomes  strong  enough  to  be  dan- 
gerous the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  are  offered  again,  and  still  this 
bait  is  taken.  Protestantism.  Calvinism,  Puritanism,  have  in  turn 
denied  God  in  spirit  while  defining  and  explaining  Him  in  words. 

I  would  not  be  understood  as  indicating  that  Christianity  has 
been  altogether  lost,  altogether  a  failure — so  far  from  it  that  it 
has  always  been  and  is  to-day  the  leaven  of  human  life.  Its  repre- 
sentatives have  been,  and  are,  few  and  weak,  in  worldly  power,  but 
they  have  been,  and  are,  the  hope  of  the  world.  And  the  long 
look  over  the  centuries  since  Christianity  was  Eomanized  by  a  pre- 
tense of  Christianizing  Rome  does  not  tend  to  discouragement. 
More  and  more,  century  by  century,  men  have  caught  at  God's  per- 
sonal fatherhood  and  man's  brotherhood  as  the  great  facts  of  the 
divine  message — at  love,  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  "  Not  by 
might  or  by  power,  but  by  my  Spirit "  is  now  more  than  ever  a  tri- 
umphant note. 

I  wish  to  use  this  opportunity  to  make  a  distinct  plea  for  the 
individual — the  separate  person — as  the  indivisible  and  indestruc- 
tible unit  in  all  matters  of  righteousness:  that  we  shall  undo  the 
wrong  of  centuries  and  stand  responsible  to  God  alone.  Christian 
churches  and  Christian  nations  are  made  of  Christian  men — are 
nothing  apart  from  them  or  in  addition  to  them.     The  whole  is 


67 

not  greater  than  the  sum  of  its  parts.  Nothing  is  right  for  us  as 
Friends,  as  Christians,  as  citizens,  which  is  wrong  for  us  as  indi- 
viduals. There  is  no  mysterious  entity  to  be  called  a  nation  or  a 
church  which  may  cancel  our  duties  as  sons  of  God,  and  substitute 
another  standard  of  right  and  wrong.  If  individuals  making  up  a 
church  represent  a  spirit  of  force,  of  violence,  the  church  cannot 
represent  a  spirit  of  peace  and  goodwill.  If  missionaries  are  backed 
by  gunboats,  if  they  collect  indemnities  under  threat  of  tiie  bay- 
onet, they  are  missionaries  of  that  power  which  promised  the  king- 
doms of  earth  in  order  secretly  to  destroy  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
If  citizens  go  forth  to  slay  and  destroy  they  may  carry  the  name 
of  civilization  on  their  lips,  but  they  are  simply  homicides  and  bar- 
barians. 

Men  salve  their  consciences,  yea,  even  benumb  their  consciences, 
by  shifting  the  responsibilities  of  their  deeds  to  a  mj^thical  some- 
thing called  a  government,  a  ciiurch;  but  no  power  can  release  a 
man  from  the  burden  of  his  deeds.  Not  that  all  homicide  and  de- 
struction is  alike  evil,  not  that  men  may  not  deceive  themselves  so 
that  the  worse  appears  the  better.  But  this  is  only  possible  by 
avoiding  the  Christian  attitude  and  shirking  the  Christian  responsi- 
bility. I  do  not  even  say  that  all  homicide  and  destruction  are 
necessarily  culpable;  but  only  that  what  is  wrong  for  each  of  us  as 
a  man  cannot  be  right  for  each  as  a  citizen,  as  a  Christian.  The 
righteous  laws  of  nations  are  superadded  to  the  moral  law,  not  sub- 
stituted for  it.  All  our  duties  as  members  of  churches,  as  citizens  of 
nations,  are  based  upon  our  duties  as  members  of  the  human  family, 
and  stand  for  those  higher  duties  consequent  upon  closer  relations. 
They  can  never  release  us  from  the  fundamental  duty  of  a  sense 
of  universal  brotherhood.  We  can  no  more,  without  violation  of 
Christian  principle,  build  our  gain,  our  greatness,  our  exaltation, 
u])on  the  loss  of  the  Hindoo  or  the  Hottentot,  the  Spaniard  or  the 
Filipino,  than  upon  that  of  our  fellow-Quaker,  or  our  fellow-Ameri- 
can. And  it  i?  a  neglect  of  this  principle  fundamentalin  Chris- 
tianity: it  is  this  placing  metes  and  bounds  upon  our  Christian 
charity,  that  marks  the  ])arbarizing  of  Christianity  during  sixteen 
centuries. 

Some  phases  of  this  essential  falsehood  are  these: 

1.  That  Christianity  is  for  peace,  indeed:  but  that  because  of 
human  weakness  Christians  must  excuse  war; 

2.  That  peace  tends  to  make  cowards  of  us,  and  that  we  must 
have  war  in  order  to  support  the  virility  of  the  race; 

3.  That  while  violence  for  selfish  ends  is  wrong,  it  is  lawful  to 
do  evil  that  good  may  come; 

4.  That  experience  shows  that  many  evils  could  not  have  been 
overcome  without  war. 


68 

(1)  Christianity  is  for  peace  among  men,  Init  must  defer  to  the 
weakness  of  humanity.  Christianity  must  indeed  stoop  to  the 
weakness  of  humanity,  not  to  excuse  that  weakness,  but  to  cure  it. 
We  must  pardon  the  sinner — must  we  also  accept  the  sin?  Jesus, 
indeed,  refused  to  punish  the  sinner;  did  he  at  the  same  time  make 
light  of  the  sin?  Shall  Christianity  trail  its  white  robe  in  the  mire 
of  sin  to  show  its  fellowship  with  sinners?  Shall  it  do  evil  that  it 
may  draw  near  to  evil-doers?  Not  so  do  I  understand  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Master  or  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit.  The  Christian  is 
not  called  upon  to  be  stupid,  selfish,  and  sinful  in  order  to  reach 
those  who  are  immersed  in  stupidity,  selfishness  and  sin.  Such  doc- 
trine could  never  have  obtained  except  for  the  pagan  idea  that  we 
are  fractional  parts  of  a  nation  or  of  a  church,  and  must  therefore 
assimilate  ourselves  to  its  average  quality.  But  the  Christian  atti- 
tude is  that  of  an  independent  unit,  a  partner  with  God  in  the 
work  of  subduing  his  earth.  His  duty  to  God  transcends  all  tem- 
porary human  relations.  And,  indeed,  the  conclusion  at  its  best 
is  a  reversal  of  common  sense.  Because  men  are  weak,  let  us  be 
strong;  because  they  are  ignorant  and  violent,  let  us  be  wise  and 
gentle.  If  they  exalt  force,  let  us  show  them  how  much  more 
powerful  is  love.  Of  course,  if  our  plea  is  that  we  are  too  weak  to 
stand  against  the  crowd,  or  that  avc  believe  the  voice  of  the  mob  is 
the  voice  of  God  and  to  be  obeyed — that  is  frankly  an  avowal  of 
disbelief  in  Christianity,  and  should  serve  as  an  appeal  to  those  who 
are  Christians  to  convert  us. 

(2)  Does  peace  make  cowards  of  us?  If  it  does,  then  Christian 
teaching  is  falsehood,  and  we  should  turn  to  a  new  and  true  gos- 
pel. It  is  the  worst  of  hypocrisy  to  proclaim  a  gospel  of  peace  as 
a  theory  and  a  gospel  of  war  as  a  practice.  And  this  is  largely  the 
attitude  of  a  nominal  Christianity  to-day.  Numerous  pseudo- 
Christian  ministers  have  exalted  the  value  of  war  as  necessary  to 
make  men  brave  and  self-sacrificing.  In  other  words,  they  do  not 
believe  that  the  gospel  they  preach  ex-officio  tends  to  produce 
brave,  true  men.  Occasional  wars  are  necessary  to  serve  as  an  anti- 
dote to  the  effects  of  periods  in  which  Christian  practices  prevail. 
If  for  years  we  have  been  at  peace — the  condition  longed  for  by 
prophet  and  Messiah — therefore,  lest  our  manhood  decline,  let  us 
burn  cities:  let  us  starve  women  and  children,  and  kill  men  by 
thousands  to  avert  the  degeneration  due  to  peace  and  the  preaching 
of  peace.  Either  Christianity  is  a  mistake  and  a  failure,  and  should 
be  given  up  wholly  or  in  part,  or  it  is  triu^  and  right,  and  should  be 
applied  in  times  of  difficulty  and  danger  as  well  as  in  times  of  ease 
and  comfort.  Indeed,  unless  it  is  a  total  failure,  Christianity  is 
needed  especially  at  times  when  men  differ  and  when  passion  tends 
to  take  the  place  of  reason. 

But,  does  peace  make  cowards  of  us?  Let  us  turn  first  to  war 
itself  for  answer.  Peace  made  the  men  called  heroes  by  the  news- 
papers, who  made  up  our  armies  in  the  Spanish  war.     Practically, 


all  ut'  them  wi-rt'  horn,  educated  and  nialured  in  a  period  of  pro- 
fonnd  peace.  Hut  the  courage  of  a  t;oldier  is  not  a  very  high  type 
of  courage.  lie  is  drilled  heforehand,  so  that  his  own  will  shall 
have  the  smallest  jiossihle  activity  in  the  time  of  crisis.  He  risks 
being  killed,  indeed;  hut  when  did  taking  risks  come  to  be  a  high 
type  of  courage?  If  it  is  so,  truly,  then,  the  gambler  is  somewhat 
of  a  hero  too.  I  am  not  arguing  against  the  courage  of  the  Ameri- 
can. I  fully  believe  in  his  courage;  but  the  taking  of  risks,  even 
lieavy  risks,  is  not  the  best  evidence  of  it.  It  is  the  motive,  not 
the  danger,  that  shows  a  hero.  We  have  vastly  better  evidence  in 
the  heroes  of  peace,  wlio  never  fail  to  appear  in  accidents,  in  wrecks 
at  sea,  in  fires  on  land.  These  are  they  who  take  risks,  often  far 
greater  than  those  of  the  soldier,  to  save  life,  not  to  destroy  it.  We 
have  greater  heroes  than  those  of  war,  again,  in  those  who  face  un- 
flinchingly long  years  of  monotonous  labor,  giving  their  strength 
ungrudgingly  to  win  comfort  and  happiness  for  their  families.  We 
have  heroes  in  our  physicians,  who  so  devote  themselves  to  healing 
the  sick  and  alleviating  suffering  that  they  deny  themselves  even 
the  vacations  whicli  are  their  due.  We  have  heroes  in  the  pioneers 
who  conquer  the  wilderness,  in  the  explorers  who  expand  the  do- 
main of  human  knowledge,  in  all  those  whose  lives  are  self-dedi- 
cated to  the  good  of  others.  We  mistake  deeply,  we  do  injustice 
to  our  race,  to  our  religion  and  to  our  civilization,  when  we  grant 
our  chief  applause  to  the  showy,  organized  national  destroyers 
rather  than  to  the  unnoticed,  miscellaneous  saviours,  who  do  their 
work,  demanding  no  meed  of  praise,  who  never  claim  to  be  heroes, 
but  who  support  upon  their  bent  shoulders  the  hope  of  the  world. 
Glory  to  the  builder,  not  to  the  destroyer. 

(3)  But  shall  we  not  do  evil  that  good  may  come?  If  good 
come  on  the  whole,  then  what  we  do  is  not  evil.  It  is  in  the  con- 
sequences of  an  act  that  exists  its  quality,  whether  good  or  evil. 
If  an  act  has  no  consequences  it  has  no  moral  element.  But  the 
flaw  in  the  ]}roposition  that  we  may  make  war  for  a  good  ])urpose 
lies  in  its  short  view.  The  experience  of  the  race  and  the  teaching 
of  our  highest  instincts  unite  in  making  clear  that  the  total  result 
of  war  is  evil,  and  only  evil  continually.  It  is  cheap  and  common 
to  assert  that  war  freed  our  nation  from  English  domination,  and 
that  it  struck  the  shackles  from  four  millions  of  slaves.  We  leave 
ont  of  account  the  heritage  of  bitterness  and  hatred  not  yet  out- 
lived that  followed  after  the  Revolution,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
thousands  of  lives  thrown  away  or  made  miserable.  We  skillfully 
avoid  the  question,  which  is  a  vital  one,  whether  greater  self-control, 
greater  patience  might  not  have  accomplished  more  with  less  of 
evil.  And  we  leave  out  of  account  the  evident  fact  that  the  slavery 
question  is  not  settled — that,  indeed,  it  is  perhaps  le.'^s  soluble  as  a 
race  question  embittered  by  the  brutal  years  of  violence  and  by  sec- 
tional discord,  than  it  was  as  a  slavery  question.  Again,  we  fail 
to  consider  what  self-restraint  and  patience  might  have  done.     And 


70 

our  fourth  difficulty  is  involved  in  our  third.  War  is  sometimes 
necessary  for  the  sake  of  others.  The  strong  must  be  violent  to 
help  the  weak — or,  as  before,  the  end  justifies  the  means.  Even  so, 
friends,  if  what  we  look  upon  were  the  end — but  there  is  no  end. 
In  a  wave  of  nation-wide  enthusiasm  we  went  to  war  with  Spain 
where  men  were  governed  badly  and  against  their  will,  and  where 
starvation  and  torture  were  used  to  enforce  submission.  After  a 
harvest  of  suffering,  disease,  and  crime  had  been  reaped,  we  now 
look  to  a  Cuba  free  from  Spain,  and  we  find  ourselves  immeshed 
in  a  war  with  a  people  whom  we  govern  badly  and  against  their 
will,  and  where  starvation  and  torture  are  used  to  enforce  submis- 
sion. Good  may,  indeed,  come  in  spite  of  evil,  for  of  unmixed  evil 
there  are  few  examples  in  the  affairs  of  men,  but  good  does  not 
come  because  of  it.  If  so  much  good  has  come  in  spite  of  all  the 
evil,  what  would  not  the  world  be  if  it  could  be  brought  to  Chris- 
tianity? 

There  is  no  more  fundamental  atheism  than  is  involved  in  a 
proclamation  that  God  is  too  weak  to  win  His  way  without  calling 
in  the  devil  to  His  help.  There  is  no  deeper  infidelity  than  that 
which  so  distrusts  the  strength  of  righteousness  that  it  must  lean 
upon  the  arm  of  unrighteousness.  It  is  from  this  attitude  of 
apology  that  I  would  earnestly  call  Christians  to-day.  "  Let  us 
have  faith  that  right  makes  might,"  and  in  that  faith  let  us  fare 
forward  courageously  in  the  path  we  are  in.  Let  us  no  more  evade 
and  pretend.  Are  we  ashamed  of  the  Christ  and  his  message?  If 
not,  let  us  speak  it,  and  live  it  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  May  we  not 
have  in  clear  unmistakable  tones  the  outspoken,  uncompromising 
demand  for  righteousness  on  the  part  of  each  individual  before 
God;  the  selfless  plea  for  self -conquest;  for  the  ruling  of  our  own 
spirits?  May  we  not  have  a  definite  rejection  of  compromise  with 
evil,  of  deals  with  iniquity,  a  courageous  and  confident  stand  upon 
the  power  of  the  spirit  of  love  to  solve  the  hard  problems  of  the 
world? 

The  Chairman: — The  next  paper  is  on  "  The  Christian  Idea 
of  Force,"  by  Dr.  Eichard  H.  Thomas,  of  Baltimore,  president  of 
the  Peace  Association  of  Friends  in  America. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  IDEA  OF  FORCE. 

BY   DR.   RICHARD  HENRY  THOMAS,   BALTIMORE,  MB. 

For  our  present  purpose  force  may  be  briefly  defined  as  power 
made  effective  for  use.  Thus  we  speak  of  spiritual,  mental  and 
physical  force,  and  of  the  various  forces  of  nature.  Without  force 
no  results  are  accomplished.  Therefore,  when  a  man  of  peace  says, 
"  I  do  not  believe  in  using  force,"  however  praiseworthy  his  mean- 
ing may  be,  his  words  are  incorrect,  and  he  lays  himself  open  to 
the  charge  of  being  a  mere  visionary.     VVlien  he  explains:  "  I  be- 


71 

lieve  not  in  the  upc  of  physical,  but  of  spiritual  and  moral  force," 
his  opponent  answers:  "Your  cliilfl  is  about  to  cut  himself  with  a 
sharp  knife;  will  you  not  snatch  it  from  him?"  "Certainly." 
"  lie  is  running  toward  a  precipice.  You  shout  to  him  to  stop. 
Either  he  does  not  hear,  or  will  not  obey.  Will  you  not  run  and 
catch  him,  and  save  him  ?  " 

"  Would  yon  never,  for  any  reason,  punish  your  child  in  other 
ways  than  by  word  or  look?  If  so,  you  do  believe,  under  certain 
circumstances,  in  the  use  of  physical  force."  But  you  reply,  "  That 
is  different.  It  is  right  to  do  these  things."  Yes,  it  is  right,  but 
you  cannot  do  them  without  physical  force.  Your  real  contention, 
then,  is  not  against  physical  force,  as  such,  but  against  the  wrong 
use  of  it. 

We  cannot  even  say  that  under  all  circumstances  the  use  of 
brute  force  is  wrong.  A  Samson  might  hold  a  lunatic  or  a  crim- 
inal, to  restrain  him  from  violence,  in  his  strong  embrace,  not  bru- 
tally, but  by  brute  force,  and  receive  from  the  most  ardent  peace 
advocate  nothing  but  praise.  Then  even  brute  force  is  not  always 
wrong,  so  it  be  not  brutally  used. 

Further,  if  physical  force  may  sometimes  be  well  used,  spiritual 
and  moral  force  may  be  wrongly  used.  The  assassin  of  our  late 
President,  for  instance,  claimed  his  deed  to  be  morally  right,  and 
if,  as  the  Bible  says,  there  be  such  a  thing  as  spiritual  wickedness, 
there  must  also  be  a  wrong  use  of  spiritual  power. 

From  the  simple  human  standpoint,  which  is,  after  all,  hardly 
removed  from  the  divine,  wc  may  therefore  conclude  that  of  all 
the  great  divisions  of  force,  spiritual  and  moral,  physical  and  me- 
chanical, none  are  in  themselves  either  right  or  wrong,  but  that  the 
moral  element  lies  in  the  manner  in  which  they  are  used  and  the 
object  to  be  gained. 

What,  then,  is  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  sub- 
ject? First,  I  find  no  distinction  made  between  physical  and  spir- 
itual force  in  the  sense  that  one  is  set  off  as  being  necessarily  right 
and  the  other  as  always  wrong.  Paul  on  one  occasion  missed  a 
splendid  opportunity  for  making  such  a  distinction.  The  only  ex- 
planation I  can  think  of  why  he  did  not  make  it  is  that  he  did  not 
believe  it  existed.  He  says,  indeed,  "  The  weapons  of  our  war- 
fare are  not  carnal."  How  many  of  us  would  say,  and  have  said, 
"  But  spiritual."  But  Paul  misses  his  opportunity  and  says,  "  Not 
carnal,  but  mighty."  The  position  is  stronger.  He  discards  car- 
nal weapons  for  something  better.  To-day,  many  assume  that 
weapons  not  carnal  are  necessarily  weak.  Paul  thought  otherwise. 
Writing  to  Eome,  the  very  center  and  symbol  of  power  in  the  civil- 
ized world,  he  says  that  he  is  not  ashamed  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  everyone  that  believeth. 
To  the  2nen  of  force  he  brings  something  more  forceful.  This  is 
no  jelly-fish  sentimentalism,  but  the  utterance  of  a  man  glorying 
in  the  Source  of  his  strength.     The  Christian  ideal  of  life  is  a  man- 


ly  ideal,  and  includes  struggle  and  conquest,  not  with  carnal  weap- 
ons— for  carnal  means  human  nature,  rising  up  against  the  rule 
of  God — not,  I  say,  with  carnal  weapons,  that  is  with  force  acting 
under  the  direction  of  the  lower  impulses  of  our  nature,  but  with 
weapons  fashioned  and  used  in  accordance  with  the  mightiest  force 
in  the  universe. 

That  the  idea  of  force  is  very  prominent  in  the  minds  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  is  clear  even  to  a  superficial  reader.  Their 
belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  supplied  them  with  their 
unit  of  available  power.  This  was  the  standard  by  which  they 
estimated  the  possibilities  of  their  life  and  work.  Paul  prays  that 
the  Ephesians  may  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  measure  of  the 
power  of  God  in  them.  This  estimate  gave  them  manifest  advan- 
tages. It  rendered  it  impossible  for  them  to  be  discouraged  at  any 
rebuff  or  defeat.  Why?  Christ  had,  humanly-speaking,  suffered 
the  most  humiliating  of  defeats,  and  yet  through  that  very  defeat 
he  had  conquered.  They  knew  that  he  had  sounded  depths  of  sor- 
row and  darkness  they  could  never  know,  and  that  every  difficulty 
they  could  meet  would  always  lie  well  within  this  unit  of  force, 
which  became  practically  available  for  everyone  as  the  result  of 
the  power  of  God  working  within  him,  as  he  lived  in  conscious  sub- 
mission to  it. 

This  did  not  make  them  unnatural  men  and  women.  They  did 
not  count  upon  God  as  savages  do  upon  a  fetich.  They  saw  that 
his  power  works  through  means,  and  they  never  hesitated  to  u.se 
means  properly  adapted  for  their  purpose.  Paul,  when  his  health 
broke  down  on  his  first  missionary  journey,  did  not  say,  "  The 
power  of  God  is  sufficient,"  and  so  disregarded  the  danger.  He 
changed  his  course,  and  went  to  the  mountains  of  northern  Galatia 
to  recruit,  and  so  came  to  preach  the  Gospel  there.  When  he 
knew  that  there  was  a  plot  against  his  life,  he  took  pains  to  have 
the  governor  who  was  responsible  for  his  safety  informed,  so  that 
he  might  not  be  needlessly  exposed  to  an  attack  by  his  enemies.  He 
repeatedly  claimed  his  civil  privileges  as  a  Koman  citizen.  But  he 
refused  to  respond  to  the  pointed  intimations  of  Felix  that  he 
should  offer  him  a  bribe,  although  he  knew  that  the  power  of  money 
would  secure  his  liberty.  He  promised  his  comrades  in  danger  dur- 
ing the  terrible  storm  that,  although  the  ship  would  be  lost,  all 
lives  should  be  saved,  yet  he  also  said  that  unless  the  sailors  were 
prevented  from  leaving  the  ship  in  the  boats  the  others  could  not 
be  rescued.  The  faith  of  the  first  Church  was  that  God  had  power 
to  deliver  them  from  all  danger,  and  therefore  when  they  were 
living  in  the  will  of  God,  and  death  or  suffering  came  upon  them, 
they  realized  fully  that  this  also  was  the  will  of  God.  The  death 
of  Stephen  did  not  dim  their  faith,  nor  did  the^  exile  that  most  of 
them  had  to  suffer  aftenvards.  The  death  of  James  did  not  dis- 
courage them  from  praying  for  Peter.  Why  should  not  they  be 
put  to  death  as  their  Lord  had  been? 


73 

The  whole  atmosphere  tliat  tliey  breathed  was  dilferent  fioin 
what  they  had  known  before,  and  from  what  those  about  them 
knew.  It  was  their  mission  to  bring  others  into  this  same  rela- 
tion to  God.  They  proclaimed  neither  a  well-worked  out  system  of 
morality  nor  of  doctrine.  Both  these  were  to  a  certain  degree  in  a 
state  of  fluidity.  What  was  prominent  in  their  ex})erience  and  in 
their  message  was  that  through  Jesus  Christ  they  had  come  to 
know  their  true  relation  to  God  and  how  to  attain  it,  and  live  in 
it  with  the  power  of  the  risen  Saviour.  They  did  not  themselves 
fully  grasp  all  that  this  implies.  Paul,  for  instance,  seems  to  have 
failed  to  understand  that  God  has  much  concern  for  the  lower  ani- 
mals, and  asks,  "  Does  God  care  for  oxen  ?  "  He  does  not  seem 
to  have  seen  that  Christian  love  bars  out  slavery.  Cornelius  is  al- 
lowed, so  far  as  we  know,  to  remain  a  Roman  soldier  centurion, 
although  there  must  have  been  duties  that  he  had  to  perform  in 
heathen  practices  essentially  connected  with  the  army,  that  to  our 
minds,  apart  from  the  necessity  of  fighting,  would  be  wholly  out 
of  harmony  wdth  Christianity.  His  example  can  as  well  be  cited  to 
support  the  theory  that  idolatry  is  consistent  with  Christ  as  that 
war  is. 

But  all  these  things  did  not  affect  the  everlasting  principle  un- 
der which  the  first  Christians  lived.  It  was  not  for  them  to  see 
to  the  end  of  that  which  shall  forever  be  opening  out  fresh  glories 
and  fresh  avenues  for  love  and  service.  The  seed  of  Christian 
thought  and  experience  that  they  planted  is  still  growing  and  de- 
veloping. But  it  was  theirs  to  learn  the  secret  of  true  power,  and 
how  it  is  known  as  we  live  in  harmon}^  with  the  source  of  it,  that  is 
with  the  spirit  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  and  in  confi- 
dence in  him.     What,  then,  is  the  spirit  of  his  life  and  teaching? 

First,  let  us  recognize  that  he  used  all  the  great  divisions  of 
force  that  I  have  mentioned,  and  set  us  the  example  that  we  should 
use  them  also.  That  he  made  use  of  what  is  known  as  spiritual 
and  moral  power  is  too  clear  to  need  exposition.  In  his  words, 
"  Be  ye  wise  as  serpents,  and  harmless  as  doves,"  w-e  have  his  en- 
dorsement of  intellectual  activity  as  applied  to  practical  matters. 
In  his  scourge  of  small  cords  w^e  have  his  endorsement  of  physical 
force.  Why  should  we  try  to  deny  it?  With  Christ,  what  he  did 
and  what  he  taught  are  not  in  contrast.  They  mutually  complete 
each  other,  and  this  act  is  not  out  of  harmony  wuth  his  teaching. 
True,  small  cords  do  small  injury.  But,  explain  it  as  you  will, 
whether  he  used  the  scourge  on  men  or  not,  the  act  was  an  exer- 
cise of  physical  force,  used  to  protest  against  an  abuse,  and  we  lose 
much  and  gain  nothing  by  trying  to  explain  it  away.  But  let  those 
who  gloat  over  this  fact,  and  who  think  that  it  endorses  the  war 
method,  remember  how  weak  small  cords  are,  and  not  attempt  to 
support  by  them  the  wars  of  Christendom,  with  their  thousands 
slain,  and  whole  districts  devastated.  Such  a  burden  is  too  great 
for  small  cords  to  sustain,  and,  after  all,  it  is  a  poor  argument  that 


74 

urges  that  because  a  certain  degree  of  physical  force  is  justifiable, 
therefore  every  degree  of  physical  force  is  justifiable.  To  protest 
against  an  abuse,  not  even  sufiiciently  to  do  away  with  it,  but  only 
enough  to  make  the  protest  understood,  is  one  thing,  and  is  wholly 
unlike  doing  men  to  death  either  individually  or  on  the  battle- 
field. I  think  these  small  cords  would  never  have  been  used  to  sup- 
port war  had  not  war  advocates  been  so  hard  put  to  it  to  find  New 
Testament  arguments  for  their  contention,  and  had  not  peace  ad- 
vocates weakened  their  cause  by  attempting  to  maintain  that  all 
physical  force  is  in  itself  condemned  by  Christ.  Before  leaving 
this  incident  let  us  remember  that  what  Christ  was  doing  was  sim- 
ply as  a  protest  and  not  as  a  punishment,  and  that  his  choice  of 
small  cords  shows  his  care  to  injure  no  one.  As  to  his  overturn- 
ing the  tables  of  the  money  changers  and  driving  out  the  animals, 
this  only  gave  their  owners  the  trouble  of  collecting  them  again,  as 
it  was  all  within  the  Temple  inclosure,  and  there  was  no  danger  of 
theft  or  loss. 

Physical  force,  therefore,  if  it  be  used  in  a  Christlike  spirit,  is 
supported  by  Christ's  example.  Apart  from  this  spirit  no  force  of 
any  kind  can  be  justified  on  the  Christian  idea.  It  is  the  same, 
therefore,  with  Christ's  teaching  as  we  found  in  respect  to  the  sim- 
ple human  point  of  view,  that  the  true  distinction  is  not  between 
spiritual  and  physical  force,  but  between  the  use  of  any  force  for 
worthy  ends  in  the  Christian  spirit,  and  force  not  so  used. 

To  discover  the  Christian  idea  of  force  we  must  understand  the 
purpose  and  method  of  Jesus  Christ.  Does  any  one  doubt  that  the 
purpose  is  truly  expressed  in  the  words,  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  not 
come  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them"?  There  is  also  a 
general  agreement  that  in  his  method  he  trusted  to  the  sweet  rea- 
sonableness of  his  teaching  and  to  the  divine  power  within  him, 
shown  through  his  life  and  sufferings,  to  reach  and  convince  men. 
Some,  however,  claim  that  what  he  says  about  not  bringing  peace 
but  a  sword,  and  his  direction  to  the  twelve  to  sell  their  garments 
and  buy  swords,  show  that  he  had  other  methods  also  in  his  mind. 
But  the  context  in  neither  case  bears  this  out.  The  sword  he  says 
he  was  come  to  send  refers  simply  to  the  family  strife  certain  to 
be  engendered  when  the  anger  of  those  who  do  not  accept  his  mes- 
sage is  aroused  against  those  who  do.  He  explains  that  he  is  speak- 
ing of  the  mother  and  father  being  arrayed  against  the  son  and 
daughter.  Therefore,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  maintain  that 
Christ  approves  of  family  quarrels,  we  must  understand  he  is  not 
expressing  approval  of  strife,  but  pictorially  referring  to  feuds  that 
must  arise  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  That  his  command  to  buy 
swords  is  purely  figurative  is  shown  by  his  reply,  when  the  dis- 
ciples said,  "  Here  are  two  swords."  "  It  is  enough,"  as  though  two 
could  be  enough  for  twelve  men.  Later  on,  when  Peter  used  one 
of  these  very  swords,  Christ  rebuked  him,  and  soon  afterwards  ex- 


76 

plained  that  the  reason  his  servants  did  not  fight  was  that  his 
kingdom  is  not  of  tliis  world. 

We  are  justified,  therefore,  in  maintaining  that  Christ's  method 
is  wholly  in  accord  with  truth  and  justice,  and  that  he  consistently 
employed  force  on  this  principle,  and  that  sooner  than  depart  from 
it  he  allowed  the  worst  evils  to  come  upon  him. 

But  some  say  that  Christ  was  carrying  out  the  design  of  God  in 
our  salvation,  and  that  therefore  he  suffered,  hut  that  we,  who  are 
not  the  saviours  of  men,  are  on  a  totally  different  plane.  Much  in 
this  assertion  seems  to  add  to  the  glory  of  Christ,  but,  certainly,  so 
far  as  it  teaches  that  we  are  to  live  on  a  different  plane  from  Christ, 
it  lacks  any  supjiort  from  the  words  of  Christ,  or  of  any  New  Tes- 
tament writer.  In  his  prayer  he  says:  '^  As  thou  hast  sent  me  into 
the  world,  even  so  have  I  sent  them  into  the  world."  Again,  "  As 
I  am,  so  are  ye  in  the  world."  "  The  servant  is  not  above  his  Mas- 
ter ..  .  It  is  enough  for  the  servant  to  be  as  his  Master."  Paul 
even  speaks  of  filling  up  that  which  is  lacking  in  the  sufferings  of 
Christ.  In  the  minds  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  immediate  followers, 
the  adoption  of  the  method  and  spirit  of  Christ  were  essential  con- 
ditions of  discipleship.  Christ  is  more  than  an  example.  He  dem- 
onstrated and  made  available  for  all  men,  as  it  had  never  been  done 
before,  the  greatest  force  in  the  universe.  Through  it  he  won  his 
great  world-victory,  and  upon  it  his  followers  are  to  rely.  It  is  the 
power  that  comes  with  such  a  surrender  to  God  as  enables  us  to  love 
him  and  those  about  us  with  a  love  that  will  not  fail  under  any 
provocation,  a  love  that  will  cast  out  self-seeking  and  selfishness, 
and  strengthen  us  for  any  sacrifice  that  is  needed  to  obey  God  and 
to  help  our  fellow  men  according  to  His  will. 

Tliis  is  so  contrary  to  the  world's  idea  of  force  that  it  requires 
us  to  drink  deep  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ  to  recognize  and  ac- 
cept it.  But  it  is  only  in  doing  so  that  we  can  have  fhe  faith  that 
overcomes  the  world. 

This  is  very  different  from  a  mere  passive  acceptance  of  ills  and 
evil.  Christ's  force  was  not  negative,  but  positive.  Paul  was  any- 
thing but  a  negative  character.  Neither  of  them  sat  down  before 
diflBculties,  waiting  for  all  things  to  come  right.  They  used  this 
force  to  most  effective  purpose,  and  did  not  neglect  the  use  of  force 
in  ordinary  channels,  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  the  supremacy 
of  this  all-controlling  force.  We  also,  as  they,  have  the  same 
strength  available  for  us,  and  through  everything  that  may  happen 
we  are  to  be  more  than  conquerors  through  him  who  loved  us. 

But  we  hear  it  objected:  "  Is  peace  safe?  "  Does  any  one  ask: 
"Is  war  safe?"  Are  good  causes  never  crushed  in  war?  Do  people 
whose  defence  is  in  firearms  never  have  their  houses  broken  into, 
and  never  kill  their  wives  or  children,  as  well  as  the  intruder,  or 
instead  of  him?  From  the  point  of  view  of  safety  of  life  and  limb 
there  is,  humanly  speaking,  no  absolute  safety  for  any  one.  The 
Czar  of  Russia  is  probably  in  greater  danger  with  all  his  guards 


76 

than  any  one  private  citizen  of  his  Empire.  It  is  not  a  question  of 
mere  physical  safety,  bnt  of  what  is  the  most  effective  method  for 
the  establishment  of  righteousness  and  the  protection  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  I  maintain  that  the  strongest  method  is  Christ's 
method,  and  also  that  there  has  now  been 'sufficient  experience  to 
make  this  assertion  more  than  a  mere  matter  of  simple  faith.  The 
experience  of  the  early  colonists  of  Pennsylvania,  as  compared  with 
other  colonists,  and  of  Pennsylvania  itself  when  unpeaceful  coun- 
sels prevailed,  is  a  strong  instance  in  point.  The  overcoming  of  the 
wild  mountaineers  of  the  Caucasus  by  the  Doukhobors  through 
persistent  kindness  is  another  example,  and  individual  instances 
innumerable  lead  to  the  same  conclusion.  And  yet,  since  our  Mas- 
ter was  ill  treated  and  put  to  death,  why  should  we  complain  that 
his  followers  may  be  called  upon  at  times  to  serve  the  truth  in  simi- 
lar ways? 

On  general  principles,  therefore,  the  Christian  idea  is  that  we 
trust  this  divine  force  and  employ  other  forces  only  as  they  ring 
true  to  the  method  and  purpose  of  our  Lord's  life  upon  earth.  On 
this  basis  everything  that  contemplates  success  or  victory  through 
force  brutally  used,  or  through  maiming  and  killing  human  beings, 
can  never  be  justified  according  to  Christ's  idea  of  force.  But  this 
limitation,  so  far  from  lessening,  strengthens  us  in  preventing  and 
reforming  evil.  I  admit  that  it  often  works  more  slowly  than  our 
patience  is  quite  ready  for,  but  it  is  far  more  certain  than  other 
means.  The  real  difficulty  lies  in  this:  first,  that  we  hold  the  truth 
too  much  in  theory,  and  have  made  it  too  little  an  essential  part  of 
our  life;  and,  second,  that  we  belong  to  a  community  only  partially 
Christian,  if  indeed  we  may  be  sure  that  we  are  wholly  Christian 
ourselves. 

A  broad  difference  between  the  first  century  and  the  nineteenth 
is  that  in  the  former  the  nation  was  nominally  idolatrous,  and  the 
Christians  in  it,  although  without  political  influence,  were  a  grow- 
ing force  leavening  the  whole,  while  we  now,  possessed  of  political 
influence,  live  in  a  nation  nominally  Christian,  but  largely  pagan. 
The  difference  is  apparently  and  really  great,  but  among  many  ad- 
vantages we  have  this  difficulty,  that  there  is  a  tendency  to  confu- 
sion of  ideas,  because  methods  and  policies,  from  being  called 
Christian,  come  to  be  regarded  as  such.  In  this  way  we  have  the  con- 
sent of  many  professing  Christians  to  things  intrinsically  heathen 
both  in  principle  and  application.  Prominent  among  these  is  the 
war  system.  It  cannot  ring  true  to  any  just  conception  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  weapons  of  its  warfare  are  essen- 
tially carnal,  the  passions  it  arouses  are  the  reverse  of  Christian, 
and  the  results  of  its  work,  after  allowing  for  all  the  benefits  that 
can  honestly  be  claimed  for  it,  are  the  reverse  of  what  is  character- 
istic of  the  work  of  Christ. 

What  then  is  the  duty  of  one  who  believes  that  he  has  seen  the 
true  Christian  idea  of  force?    Certainly  he  is  not  to  withdraw  from 


77 

those  about  hiiiK  as  tliough  ho  were  holi(>r  than  thoy.  Moreovc>r  we 
have  what  the  early  Christians  had  not — political  inlluence.  This 
is  something  that  no  one,  either  man  or  woman,  has  a  right  to 
neglect.  We  cannot  do  so  without  being  false  to  duty.  Indilference 
means  that  we  are  exercising  the  wrong  influence.  Wo  need  not 
be  always  condemning  those  who  do  not  see  as  we  do,  nor  should 
we  forget  that  so  long  as  the  majority  of  our  countrymen  believe 
that  their  great  protection  is  in  the  force  of  arms,  it  is  impossible 
to  do  more  than  limit  the  building  of  warships  and  appropriations 
for  military  purposes.  We  are  to  labor  to  render  these  things  use- 
less and  out  of  date.  Democracy  means  or  at  least  should  mean, 
the  predominating  influence  of  men  out  of  olUce,  and  the  fact  that 
we  may  not  consistently  hold  offices  where  in  the  judgment  of  those 
who  would  have  elected  us,  it  might  become  our  official  duty  to  call 
out  the  military,  need  not  discourage  us.  There  was  practically 
no  office  whatever  open  to  the  first  Christians,  and  we  know  what 
great  influence  they  exerted. 

Our  position  is  not  negative,  but  positive.  We  have,  and  we 
are  to  use,  the  mighty  weapons  of  our  warfare  to  the  pulling  down 
of  strongholds,  and  the  casting  down  of  everything  that  exalts  it- 
self against  the  obedience  of  Christ.  The  Peace  message  is  more 
than  a  theory  or  than  a  mere  moral  sentiment.  It  is  not  a  weak  as- 
sertion that  we  disbelieve  in  war  and  oppression,  and  believe  in 
peace  at  any  price. 

It  is,  to  begin  with,  an  experience — an  experience  of  imion  with 
the  God  of  love  and  truth,  such  a  union  that  we  are  taken  posses- 
sion of  and  held  by  that  love.  This  will  enable  us  to  live  in  such  a 
spirit  as  George  Fox  was  in  when,  after  he  had  been  seriously  in- 
jured, he  looked  at  the  disabled  arm,  not  in  anger  or  regret,  but  in 
the  love  of  God.  It  is  only  in  such  an  experience  that  we  can 
truly  test  whether  a  given  proceeding  is  right  or  wrong.  The 
love  of  God  in  our  hearts  will  then  be  the  true  decider.  It  is  only 
by  being  in  an  experience  that  does  away  with  wars  and  fightings 
and  the  causes  of  them  in  our  own  hearts,  that  we  are  able  to 
know  what  it  is  to  have  the  mighty  weapons  of  God,  and  to  be  able 
truly  to  influence  men.  But  if  we  are  practically  taking  the  same 
attitude  that  others  are  taking  upon  national  and  international 
questions,  and  simply  drawing  the  line  when  it  comes  to  actual 
fighting,  we  have  given  up  our  principle,  and  are  holding  a  tra- 
dition. 

Starting  with  the  experience  of  union  with  Christ,  we  are  where 
we  can  take  a  correct  general  view  oi  things.  Wc  cannot  expect 
men  who  have  not  recognized  our  principle  to  act  in  accordance  with 
it.  But  when  they  do  not  do  so,  we  shall  not  co-operate  with  them. 
We  should  be  ready,  how^ever,  as  their  brothers,  in  the  providence 
of  God,  to  suffer  patiently  with  them  in  every  w^ay  not  inconsistent 
with  our  position.  We  can  do  what  lies  within  us  to  bring  them  to 
see  what  is  so  true  to  us,  and  we  can  encourage  everything  that 


78 

tends  to  promote  justice  and  peace,  everything  that  will  help  to 
bring  in  an  era  of  true  and  permanent  good  feeling  at  home  or 
abroad.  We  can  endeavor  to  help  those  in  official  position  to  find 
ways  of  settling  disputes  peacefully,  and  we  can  show  appreciation 
of  their  efforts  in  these  directions.  We  can  in  times  of  excitement 
exert  ourselves  to  allay  it,  and  we  can  make  the  most  of  such  move- 
ments as  the  Hague  Convention,  the  Pan-American  Congress, 
Boards  of  Arbitration,  etc.,  between  Labor  and  Capital.  We  can 
arouse  the  consciences  of  our  fellow  Christians,  and,  above  all,  con- 
tinually live  in  the  power  of  the  peaceful  conquering  Saviour. 

The  Chairman: — Before  opening  the  general  discussion,  I  will 
make  the  announcement  that  to-morrow  the  meeting  will  be 
opened  at  ten  o'clock,  and  the  doors  will  be  closed  during  the  de- 
votional period  with  which  the  exercises  begin.  President  M. 
Carey  Thomas,  of  Bryn  Mawr  College,  will  preside  at  the  session 
to-morrow  forenoon,  and  the  program,  as  you  have  it  printed,  will 
be  carried  out. 

There  will  be  some  time  now  for  a  general  discussion  of  the 
papers  to  which  we  have  just  listened,  and  this  discussion  will  be 
opened  by  President  Birdsall,  of  Swarthmore  College. 

William  W.  Birdsall:  I  was  particularly  impressed  this 
morning  by  that  paragraph  of  Dr.  Barton's  paper  in  which  he  out- 
lined the  progress  of  the  Hebrew  idea  of  God  and  the  effect  of  that 
idea  upon  their  relations  with  each  other.  When  their  God  was  a 
God  of  the  family,  then  each  family  considered  itself  to  be  under 
the  protection  and  guidance  of  its  own  God;  this  belief  permitted 
war  with  every  family  round  about.  It  was  a  step  of  progress  when 
the  family  God  became  a  tribal  God,  and  family  war  lost  itself  in  the 
larger,  still  barbarous,  idea  of  tribal  war.  So,  when  the  idea  came 
that  Jehovah  was  a  national  God,  it  set  free  the  tribe  from  war 
against  tribe,  but  it  set  nation  at  war  against  nation.  What  an 
elevation  of  human  life  it  was  when  they  came  at  last  to  see  that 
the  God  of  their  fathers  was  the  God  of  men  of  every  country  and 
every  clime,  that  all  men  were  of  one  blood,  and  therefore  brethren. 
It  seemed  to  me  that  Dr.  Barton  had  put  his  finger  upon  the  vital 
point  in  this  discussion,  at  least  so  far  as  the  bearing  of  religion 
upon  peace  is  concerned,  when  he  said  that  the  promulgation  of  the 
idea  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  made  necessarily  unlawful  every  act 
of  war.  But,  as  the  idea  of  God  became  successively  tribal,  na- 
tional, universal,  was  it  not  natural  that  in  some  degree  at  least 
the  sense  of  individual  responsibility  should  be  lost,  and  was  not 
the  coming  of  a  Messiah  needed  to  call  men  back  to  their  indi- 
vidual relation  with  the  Most  High,  and  to  teach  them  to  cease  to 
think  of  Him  as  the  God  of  nations  or  the  God  of  battles,  but  to 
think  of  Him  as  the  Father  of  the  individual? 

The  method  of  Jesus  was  the  individual  method;  He  appealed 


79 

to  multitudes,  but  always  to  multitudes  as  composed  of  individuals. 
If  you  wish  to  get  typical  instances  of  His  method,  where  do  you 
go?  Not  to  His  discourses  to  great  concourses  of  people,  l)ut  to 
His  quiet  talk  with  the  woman  at  the  well,  or  with  one  or  two  dis- 
ciples, here  and  there.  It  was  through  His  touch  upon  the  indi- 
vidual heart  that  He  gained  His  hold  upon  the  mind  and  heart 
of  His  multitude  of  followers.  How  natural  it  was  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  Christian  Church  for  it  to  gain  its  hold  upon  men's 
minds  through  the  whispering  of  slave  to  slave,  or  slave  to  master, 
or  friend  to  friend,  through  the  i)rouehing  of  evangelists  and  dis- 
ciples; but  it  was  no  less  natural,  as  numbers  gathered,  that  the 
appeal  should  be  to  numbers  and  that  it  should  be  forgotten  that 
it  was  the  individual  that  was  responsible,  that  it  was  through  the 
individual  that  the  church  was  to  extend.  How  natural  it  was  to 
reach  out  for  numbers,  for  organization,  for  authority;  and  to  yield 
to  the  temptation,  as  the  Church  did,  to  barter  its  birthright  for  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world! 

Dr.  Holmes  pointed  out  to  us  that  something  like  this  has  hap- 
pened in  the  history  of  every  great  religious  movement.  He 
omitted  our  own.  but  he  need  not  have  omitted  it.  Was  not  the 
appeal  of  George  Fox  to  the  individual?  When  he  came  into  a 
neighborhood,  did  he  not  inquire  what  people  there  were  tender? 
Did  he  not  seek  them  out  and  minister  to  them  as  one  mind  and  one 
heart  to  another  mind  and  heart?  All  through  his  ministry  was 
it  not  the  individual  to  whom  he  preached;  and  did  not  those  who 
followed  him  and  who  spread  the  Quaker  faith  through  England 
and  over  the  continent  and  into  America  pursue  his  method? 
When  they  grew  in  numbers  and  in  power  and  in  respectability, 
did  not  they,  too,  appeal  to  power — not  indeed  to  the  power  of  the 
State,  but  to  the  power  of  their  own  organization;  and  did  not 
they,  too,  fail  when  they  bartered  their  birthright  of  a  living,  in- 
dividual religion  for  a  religion  hemmed  in  and  bound  by  a  narrow, 
a  destructive,  a  disowning  discipline? 

Like  early  Christianity,  the  Quaker  faith  was  propagated  by 
mastering  the  consciences  of  individual  men.  That,  it  seems  to 
me,  the  history  of  every  great  spiritual  movement  declares  to  be 
the  true  method.  Organization  is  good;  it  brings  together  forces 
already  in  existence,  arranges  for  their  best  applications,  and  pro- 
vides for  their  greatest  usefulness.  So  long  as  those  forces  live  in 
the  unities  of  which  the  organization  is  composed,  so  long  is  the 
organization  vital,  helpful,  a  force  in  the  community.  Just  so 
soon  as  the  unities  of  which  the  organization  is  composed  lose  their 
hold  upon  the  vital  force  which  first  called  it  into  being,  just  so 
soon  is  the  organization  a  dead  shell,  hindering  life,  ready  to  be 
sloughed  off  and  discarded. 

If  we  will  truly  seize  this  idea  of  the  individual  responsibility, 
of  the  individual  relation  to  the  Source  of  light  and  truth,  then, 
indeed,  shall  we  be  enabled  to  apply  the  Christian  idea  of  force. 


80 

This  will  enable  us  to  live  in  the  world;  to  work  with  our  fellows, 
though  they  see  not  with  us;  to  do  the  work  that  is  laid  upon  us 
without  hindering  the  good  work  that  is  laid  upon  our  brethren. 
It  is  right  for  us  to  come  together  in  organization  for  definite  work: 
it  is  right  for  us  to  protest  as  societies  for  every  worthy  cause  and 
against  every  evil  movement.  But  there  is  a  deeper  foundation  for 
the  culture  and  promotion  of  righteousness  in  the  world.  It  is  the 
appeal,  which  has  never  failed  when  made,  to  the  individual  mind, 
and  its  duties  to  the  Father  of  Light.  We  do  right  to  join  our- 
selves together  in  every  good  work;  but  we  do  the  essential  thing 
when  we  turn  to  the  voice  of  God  in  the  soul,  as  George  Fox  called 
upon  the  great  Protector  to  do.  Much  talk,  he  says,  he  had  with 
Cromwell — much  discourse  about  religion  and  about  other  things; 
and  they  came  upon  this  subject  of  war.  The  Quaker  apostle  con- 
demned him  not,  but  called  him  to  turn  to  the  voice  of  God  in 
his  own  heart,  which  he  told  him  if  he  would  hear  would  call  him 
away  from  the  occasions  of  wars  and  fightings  and  lead  him  into  the 
peaceable  spirit  of  Jesus. 

Joseph  Elkixton:  I  think  our  friend  Dr.  Holmes  has  done  us 
a  great  service  in  sounding  the  keynote  of  all  true  civilization,  of 
all  religion  worthy  the  name  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  a  ques- 
tion with  me  how  we  may  approach  those  who  do  not  hold  the 
views  that  we  do;  and  it  has  seemed  to  me  he  has  given  us  a  clue 
to  the  possibility  of  making  men  think  it  possible  for  them  to  be 
separated  from  perverted  popular  opinion,  and,  if  need  be,  from 
their  religious  instructors,  to  have  their  views  created  by  a  higher 
Power  than  either  of  these. 

I  wish,  also,  to  refer  to  Dr.  Thomas's  instance  of  the  Doukho- 
bors,  who  have  given  us  perhaps  the  most  striking  illustration  in 
recent  times  of  what  peace  principles  will  do  in  practice.  They 
were  sent  at  one  time  into  the  heart  of  a  country  infested  by  the 
wildest-hearted  men.  sent  there  purposely  to  be  annihilated  by 
them.  But  they  maintained  their  peace  principles  even  to  throw- 
ing away  their  arms,  and  they  came  out  of  that  situation  with  very 
few  deaths  from  the  use  of  arms  against  them.  It  seems  to  me 
to  be  a  most  striking  lesson.  So  does  their  recent  deliverance  from 
Russia.  There  arc  many  other  sects  in  that  country  pleading  for 
freedom  of  thought,  but  the  Doukhobors  alone  seem  to  have  won. 
They  have  come  to  America  by  virtue,  no  doubt,  of  the  sympathy 
and  help  of  Friends  in  England  and  here,  but  also,  there  is  not 
the  least  doubt,  because  they  maintained  their  peace  principles 
inviolate  under  circumstances  the  most  trying  in  modern  civiliza- 
tion. 

The  Chairman:  As  no  one  else  seems  to  wish  to  speak,  the 
Conference  is  now  adjourned  till  ten  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 


Jfourtb  Sceeion. 

FiFTII-UAY  JMORXIXG,  TWELFTII   MONTII   13X11. 


The  Conference  rc-assenil)led  in  Witherspoon  Hall  Fifth-day 
morning  at  10  o'clock.  M.  Carey  Thomas,  president  of  Bryn  Mawr 
College,  occupied  the  Cliair. 

A  few  minutes  at  the  opening  of  the  session  were  given  to  devo- 
tion, during  which  prayer  was  offered  hy  Mary  Jane  Weaver  and 
Allen  Flitcraft. 

SI.  CAKiiY  Thomas:  In  the  hrief  remarks  I  shall  make  from 
the  chair,  before  calling  on  the  speakers  who  have  prepared  formal 
papers,  I  thought  it  might  he  of  interest  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  forces  outside  of  the  churches  that  are  making  for  peace. 

It  is  easy  for  us  to  let  the  warlike  emotions  of  the  past  three 
years,  which  have  swept  over  the  United  States  in  connection  with 
our  own  war  with  Spain  and  England's  war  with  the  Boers,  cause  us 
to  underestimate  the  force  of  the  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  peace 
and  arbitration  that  has  grown  up  during  the  preceding  thirty  years 
of  almost  unbroken  European  peace. 

In  looking  back  over  the  Nineteenth  Century  and  reflecting  on 
the  great  revolutions  of  thought  and  social  feeling  that  will  reach 
their  culmination  only  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  we  can  discern, 
I  think,  two  great  movements  making  strongly  for  peace— the 
higher  education  of  women,  the  immensity  of  whose  results  we  can- 
not as  yet  fully  foresee,  and  the  socialistic  organization  of  working- 
men. 

The  Nineteenth  Century  has  witnessed  the  abolishment  of  slav- 
ery in  civilized  Europe  and  lier  colonies,  the  reform  of  prisons  and 
treatment  of  criminals,  the  humane  care  of  the  insane,  the  founding 
of  reformatories  of  all  kinds,  and  hospitals,  systematic  and  wisely 
directed  work  among  the  poor  in  slums  and  tenements,  the  regula- 
tion of  the  employer  in  the  interests  of  the  employed,  the  vast 
spread  of  international  commerce,  with  its  trade  unions.  These 
mighty  social  and  humanitarian  movements,  taking  place  simul- 
taneously in  all  civilized  countries,  have  created  a  consciousness  of 
the  human  kinship  which  unites  all  the  inhabitants  of  these  dif- 
ferent countries.  The  International  Peace  Conference  at  The 
Hague,  in  1899,  is  one  proof  of  this  consciousness.  The  Pan- 
American  Congress  now  meeting  in  Mexico  has  set  before  itself  as 
its  chief  object  the  adoption  by  the  South  American  delegates  of 
the  principle  of  arbitration.  Yet  a  little  more  than  two  hundred 
years  ago,  in  1693,  when  William  Penn  drew  up  his  scheme  for  a 


83 

European  Council  of  Arbitration,  it  was  regarded    as    a    Quaker 
dream. 

The  general  progress  of  popular  sentiment  will  be  greatly 
assisted  and  hastened,  however,  by  two  distinct  and  specific  move- 
ments. The  emergence  of  women  as  a  sex  into  the  life  of  affairs  in 
the  Twentieth  Century,  and  the  swiftly  approaching  political  pre- 
ponderance through  universal  suffrage  and  organization  of  the 
working  man,  and  ultimately  of  the  working  woman,  will  be  most 
important  factors  in  bringing  about  peace  in  the  Twentieth  Cen- 
tury. No  one  who  has  known  women  that  lived  through  the  trag- 
edies and  agonies  of  our  Civil  War,  or  indeed  of  any  war,  can  doubt 
that  the  suffering  of  war  falls  more  heavily  on  women  than  on 
men,  and  that  in  consequence  their  influence  as  a  sex  will  be  ex- 
erted for  peace,  just  as  no  one  who  follows  the  discussions  of  the 
workingmen's  parties  and  the  influence  already  exerted  by  social- 
ists can  fail  to  see  that  the  time  is  approaching  when  the  men  who 
work  with  their  hands  in  one  country  will  refuse  to  fight  the  men 
who  work  with  their  hands  in  another  country  for  any  of  the  trivial 
causes  for  which  nations  have  often  declared  war  in  the  past. 

Of  all  the  great  moral  and  religious  principles  and  doctrines  ad- 
vocated by  the  Quaker  Church,  peace  seems  to  be  the  only  one  that 
has  not  yet  found  universal  acceptance.  The  other  spiritual  truths 
taught  by  George  Fox  and  his  followers,  in  1650,  are  now  accepted 
by  all  Christian  Churches  with  more  or  less  fulness.  The  spiritual 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  instead  of  the  literal,  the  use  of  the  Sab- 
bath for  man  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,  the  subordination  of  the 
symbol  to  the  spiritual  belief  symbolized,  the  comparative  unim- 
portance of  creeds  and  dogmas,  the  abhorrence  of  slavery,  con- 
viction of  temperance,  recognition  of  women's  responsibility  and 
share  in  the  work  of  the  church,  are  now  taught  by  all  Christians. 

This  is  not,  however,  equivalent  to  saying  that  these  changes  in 
the  thought  and  practices  of  the  Christian  Church  have  come 
about  in  consequence  of  Quaker  teaching.  Quakers  in  the  past  have 
separated  themselves  too  much  from  other  Christians  by  useless  pe- 
culiarities of  dress  and  language  which  ceased  to  have  any  real  sig- 
nificance over  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago;  and  these  superficial 
and  unnecessary  differences  have  made  them  a  peculiar  people  and 
isolated  them  from  other  Christians. 

But  whatever  mistakes  may  have  been  made  in  the  past,  the 
Quaker  Church  is  now  ready  to  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  the 
other  churches  in  the  support  and  dissemination  of  peace.  It  is  al- 
most impossible  for  any  Friend  of  the  older  generation  to  believe 
in  war;  his  ancestors  have  suffered  too  much  for  their  peace  prin- 
ciples in  the  past.  But  this  is  not  true  of  the  younger  generation 
of  Friends;  they,  and  indeed  all  of  the  young  people  of  to-day,  seem 
to  me  warlike  in  spirit.  For  the  past  three  years  they  have  listened 
to  and  read  in  the  papers  stirring  military  speeches  delivered  in 
praise  of  war  by  our  leading  public  men.    We  have  a  gallant  warrior 


83 

President  in  the  White  House,  and  we  must  renieml)er  that  our  late 
Spanish  War  lias  heen  the  first  great  patriotic  emotion  of  their 
youth.  I  am  usually  able  to  carry  the  students  of  Bryn  Mawr  Col- 
lege with  me  when  I  speak  to  them  on  public  questions,  but  I  am 
not  able  to  command  their  sympathy  when  I  speak  in  favor  of 
peace.  Those  of  us  who  believe  in  peace  and  arbitration  must  re- 
member that  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  supply  the  antidote  of  an  un- 
compromising and  insistent  expression  of  contrary  opinion,  unless 
we  wish  the  younger  generation  to  grow  up  far  more  warlike  in 
spirit  than  our  own. 

Peace  and  temperance  are,  I  believe,  the  next  great  moral  vic- 
tories to  be  won,  and  they  will  surely  be  won  in  the  present  cen- 
tury; but  it  is  not  enough  to  recognize  this  intellectually.  The  out- 
come of  this  Conference  should  be  an  aggressive  peace  propaganda, 
not  carried  on  separately  by  the  Quaker  Church,  but  in  concerted 
effort  with  all  believers  in  peace  and  arbitration.  Friends,  with 
their  profound  belief  in  peace,  bred  in  their  inmost  fiber,  as  it  were, 
by  their  continuous  and  consistent  church  inheritance,  stretching 
back  for  over  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  should  become  the  back- 
bone of  such  a  propaganda. 

Bacon  says  somewhere  that  "  men  must  not  turn  bees  and  leave 
their  lives  in  the  wound,"  and  I  am  confident  that  the  time  is  close 
at  hand  when  it  will  be  generally  recognized  that  the  nation  that 
goes  to  war  except  in  the  last  extremity,  and  perhaps  even  then,  like 
a  colony  of  bees,  loses  in  the  war,  whether  it  be  victorious  or  not, 
many  things  which  constitute  the  true  life  of  its  people,  and  among 
them  sympathy,  justice,  tenderness  for  others  and  righteousness. 

The  Chairman:  I  will  now  call  on  the  first  speaker  on  the 
morning's  program,  Peter  \V.  Eaidabaugh,  of  Plainfield,  Indiana. 

THE  IMPOETANCE  OF  TEACHING  PEACE  PRINCIPLES 
IN   THE    BIBLE    SCHOOLS. 

BY  P.  TV.  RAIDABAUGH,  PLAINFIELD,  INDIANA. 

The  Bible  School  could  have  no  more  dangerous  enemy  than 
one  who  would  separate  it  from  the  established  work  of  the  Church 
— the  organized  body.  The  Bible  School  is  considered  and  spoken  of 
as  belonging  to  some  particular  branch  of  the  Church,  just  as  a  boy 
or  girl  is  thought  of  as  having  a  father  and  mother  and  belonging 
to  some  particular  family.  The  Bible  School  is  a  child  of  the 
Church,  and  should  be  considered  as  the  Church  assembled  for  Bible 
study;  its  highest  usefulness  is  reached  when  the  youth  are  taught 
the  principles  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  them 
to  accept  Christ  as  a  personal  Saviour  and  to  dedicate  their  lives 
to  his  service. 

The  majority  of  those  enrolled  in  our  Bible  Schools  have  not 
reached  maturity  and  need  the  help  of  mature  minds  in  their  study 


84 

of  the  Scriptures.  They  are  largely  passive  beings,  mere  receivers 
of  influence,  and  are  in  the  period  of  preparation  for  the  active  re- 
sponsibilities of  life.  They  are  like  buds  that  must  be  unfolded  be- 
fore the  beauty  of  the  flower  can  be  seen,  or  like  gems  hidden  in  a 
casket  which  must  be  uncovered  before  they  can  reflect  the  rays  of 
light.  Their  pupilage  will  soon  end,  and  they  will  enter  upon  the 
activities  of  lifC;,  and  give  to  the  next  generation  the  influence  the 
Bible  School  has  thrown  around  them  in  this  period  of  develop- 
ment. During  this  time  the  child  must  be  assisted  by  wise  and 
pious  leadership  that  a  correct  foundation  for  the  future  building 
be  laid.  As  you  teach  a  child  so  you  impress  him.  His  mind  is  a 
rich  garden  spot,  ready  to  receive  and  respond  to  the  seed  sown. 

The  whole  creed  of  a  child  may  be  summed  up  in  a  single  sen- 
tence, "  I  believe  in  (lod,  my  parents  and  my  teacher."  He  cannot 
get  beyond  this  and  untangle  the  theories  of  learned  theologians;  but 
he  does  believe  what  is  taught  him  by  parent  or  teacher,  because 
he  believes  in  them.  The  truths  taught  in  the  Bible  School  class 
are  to  him  the  whole  of  the  Gospel.  The  whole  compass  of  truth  is 
in  what  his  teacher  says.  A  Jesuit  priest  said,  "  Grive  me  a  child 
iintil  he  is  eight  years  of  age,  and  you  may  have  him  after  that." 
By  this  he  meant  to  say  that  during  the  first  eight  years  of  the 
child's  life  he  would  so  impress  upon  his  mind  the  tenets  of  the 
Eoman  Catholic  Church  that  he  would  forever  remain  true  to  the 
teachings  of  that  church.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  a  child  sel- 
dom wanders  from  the  path  in  which  he  starts — in  childhood  he 
starts  for  a  goal  and  usually  reaches  it. 

One  who  would  use  an  intricate  machine  needs  to  understand 
what  it  is  designed  for  and  how  to  use  it.  The  mind  of  the  child 
is  such  a  machine.  It  cannot  be  expected  to  work  accurately  except 
for  the  purpose  and  in  the  manner  its  Maker  has  designed.  T!\e 
work  of  the  Bible  School  teacher  has  so  much  to  do  with  the  child's 
mind  that  it  is  necessary  that  he  should  have  some  understanding 
of  its  nature  and  its  modes  of  operation.  He  must  not  only  study 
the  Scriptures  so  as  to  teach  them  correctly,  but  he  must  study  the 
child  so  as  to  impress  the  truth  taught.  He  should  know  that  the 
action  of  all  the  faculties,  except  the  will,  is  mechanical  and  acts  on 
the  suggestions  of  another,  and  that  there  can  be  no  choice  or  free- 
dom only  as  it  exists  in  the  will.  The  order  in  which  the  child- 
mind  operates  is,  first,  to  perceive — grasp  the  truth;  second,  to 
judge;  third,  to  feel;  and  fourth,  to  choose.  The  faculties  thus 
brought  into  exercise  are  Perception,  Judgment,  the  Sensibilities 
and  the  Will. 

Success  or  failure  in  teaching  and  impressing  truth  so  as  to 
reach  the  will  depends  on  whether  we  do  or  do  not  follow  this  or- 
der. All  the  ideas  or  truths  which  are  presented  to  the  child-mind 
are  taken  up  and  passed  through  the  process  of  thinking,  and  from 
the  thought,  or  truth,  presented  it  turns  out  the  actions  of  life, 
much  like  a  machine  taking  in  the  raw  material  and  turnino-  out 


8o 

the  finished  product.  The  inind  grows  only  l)y  receiving.  Some 
minds  receive  slower  than  others;  some  think  slower  than  others; 
some  cannot  be  hurried  beyond  their  own  speed  without  great  dan- 
ger; some  minds  demand  greater  care  as  to  statement  of  truths 
than  others;  some  demand  greater  care  as  to  explanation  and  illus- 
tration than  others;  and  some  depend  more  on  repetition  than 
others,  hut  all  reach  the  same  end. 

Some  one  has  said:  *'  Sow  a  thought  and  reap  an  act;  sow  an 
act  and  reap  a  habit;  soav  a  habit  and  reap  a  character;  sow  charac- 
ter and  reap  destiny."  The  child  begins  the  development  of  a 
good  or  bad  character  in  thoughts,  and  these  are  followed  by  acts 
which  develop  into  habits  that  become  fixed  and  unchanging.  Mo- 
hammed says  a  mountain  may  change  its  base,  but  not  a  man  his 
disposition.  No  one  can  be  better  than  his  best  thoughts.  High 
ideals  are  incentives  to  high  living.  The  most  of  us  can  think  a 
great  deal  higher  than  we  live.  Hence  the  importance  of  correct 
teaching  on  all  lines  of  Gospel  truth  in  our  Bible  Schools.  I  have 
to  do  with  but  one  truth  in  this  paper — peace  principles. 

False  standards  are  raised;  brute  force  is  often  held  up  as  heroic. 
'"  The  man  behind  the  gun  "  is  lauded,  and  he  who  can  practice  the 
greatest  deceit  or  slay  the  most  is  considered  patriotic  and  worthy 
of  homage  from  his  fellows.  The  newspapers  are  full  of  commenda- 
tion for  acts  of  heroism  on  the  battlefield.  The  pulpit  joins  in  tlie 
praise  of  war  and  calls  for  a  manifestation  of  patriotism  on  fields 
of  blood.  The  air  is  full  of  this  thought.  There  is  a  glamour 
thrown  around  the  soldier's  life.  The  young  man  in  uniform  and 
brass  buttons  is  the  envy  of  other  young  men,  and  admired  by  the 
ladies.  He  walks  the  street  with  a  sense  of  superiority.  If  he  is 
killed  in  battle,  no  matter  how  sinful  his  life  has  been,  he  is  looked 
upon  as  a  crowned  hero.  This  thought  has  descended  to  us  from 
barbarous  tribes  whose  greatest  warriors  gained  the  highest  heaven. 
The  trend  of  thought  is  along  this  false  standard  of  heroism  and 
patriotism.  The  literature  for  our  children  is  filled  W'ith  it.  Books 
in  our  Bible  School  libraries  have  for  their  heroes  a  blood-stained 
villain.  The  comments  in  lesson  helps  associate  heroism  and  pa- 
triotism with  deeds  of  warfare.  Our  children  are  taught,  in  the 
period  of  early  and  lasting  impressions,  that  heroism  and  patriotism 
are  only  found  in  deeds  of  valor  on  battlefields,  and  that  it  is  honor- 
able to  slay  an  enemy  of  one's  country. 

The  remedy  for  this  evil  is  to  teach  the  child  the  true  spirit  of 
Christianity  as  seen  in  the  teachings  of  Clirist  and  throughout  the 
New  Testament.  We  must  teach  that  impurity  of  thought  is  back 
of  impure  language,  that  falsehood  in  the  heart  is  back  of  the  un- 
true word,  that  character  is  the  hidden  life  known  to  our  conscience 
and  open  before  God;  that  reputation  is  not  the  real  life  of  the  man. 
that  reputation  is  what  men  say  we  are,  character  what  we  are;  that 
reputation  is  in  the  hands  of  our  fellow  men,  character  in  our  own 
hands.    Teach  the  child  that  a  true  hero  is  one  not  ashamed  of  hon- 


86 

est  toil;  that  labor,  whether  of  hand  or  brain,  is  heaven's  ordinance 
for  human  improvement;  that  the  hand  of  the  son  of  toil  is  made 
hard  in  a  service  a  thousand  times  more  honorable  than  war;  that 
heroism  is  found  bending  in  the  fields  under  heavy  burdens;  sweat- 
ing in  the  workshops  of  the  land;  that  heroines  are  found  in  the  fac- 
tories, clothed  in  calico,  blanching  brow  and  cheek  to  preserve  the 
whiteness  of  the  soul;  that  a  true  heroic  character  is  that  which  does 
right. 

There  can  be  but  one  logical  course  for  all  writers  for  the  young 
and  all  teachers  in  our  Bible  Schools  to  take,  and  that  is  to  present 
the  true  spirit  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  impress  on  the  young 
mind  the  brotherhood  of  man,  that  right  thinking  may  beget  right 
acts  and  lead  to  right  habits,  working  in  them  a  pure  character. 
Impress  the  sacredness  of  human  life,  that  murder  is  murder, 
whether  in  times  of  peace  or  war.  Teach  the  spirit  of  the  Master 
in  dealing  with  enemies;  that  love  is  to  be  the  controlling  spirit  of 
the  Christian's  life;  that  the  new  birth  means  the  implanting  of  a 
new  force  in  the  life,  a  power  contrary  to  the  flesh.  Instead  of  pre- 
senting a  picture  of  Napoleon  or  Wellington  or  Grant  leading 
armies  on  to  victory,  make  Florence  Nightingale,  Clara  Barton, 
Grace  Darling,  John  Howard  or  Livingstone  the  central  thought 
for  illustration,  or  give  a  picture  of  that  great  and  godly  man  as  he 
sailed  up  the  Delaware  Bay,  and  for  the  first  time  stepped  on  the 
American  soil  with  his  heart  beating  immortal  with  its  pulsations 
of  love  for  man  and  God.  Tell  how  he  planted  the  seed  of  a  mighty 
nation  on  the  shores  of  the  Delaware,  and  never  wronged  the  In- 
dian. So  that  to  this  day  the  story  of  William  Penn  is  told  in  le- 
gend to  the  Indian  children  of  the  West,  and  all  who  belong  to  the 
"  Broad  Brims  "  are  hailed  as  friends  of  the  despised  children  of 
the  plains. 

By  so  doing  the  army  of  bright  boys  and  girls  in  our  Bible 
Schools  will  have  the  advantage  of  a  right  start  in  life,  and  the 
principle  of  peace  and  good  will  toward  men  will  be  so  impressed  on 
the  coming  generation  that  there  will  be  a  great  forward  movement 
resulting  in  all  differences  between  nations,  between  capital  and 
labor,  between  man  and  man,  being  settled  on  the  broad  principle  of 
human  brotherhood. 

The  Chairman:  The  next  speaker  on  the  program  is  Presi- 
dent Edmund  Stanley,  of  Friends'  University,  Kansas,  who  will 
speak  on  ""  The  Principal  Influences  Making  for  Peace,  and  How 
They  May  be  Strengthened." 


87 

PRINCIPAL    INFLUENCES    MAKING    FOR    PEACE    AND 
HOW    THEY    MAY    BE    STRENGTHENED. 

BY  PRESIDENT  EDMUND  STANLEY,  WICHITA,  KAN. 

To  study  the  slow  progress  of  great  reforms  as  interested  ob- 
servers, impressed  with  the  need  of  radical  changes  in  the  affairs  of 
men,  conscious  of  the  wrongs  endured  by  society,  and  convinced 
that  relief  can  be  had  simply  by  the  accepting,  calls  for  a  degree  of 
patience  not  easily  exercised. 

Surprising  beyond  measure  is  it  that  nations  and  peoples  con- 
tinue to  refuse  the  greatest  boon  that  in  the  providences  of  na- 
tional experience  and  human  life  is  attainable. 

It  took  the  devastation  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  who  laid 
claim  to  any  achievements  in  skill,  learning  and  literature,  to  make 
an  Alexander;  the  sacrifice  of  two  million  of  the  best  of  Europe's 
people  to  make  a  Caesar;  an  upheaval  of  governments  that  left  all 
Europe  a  seething  mass  of  political  ruin  to  make  a  Napoleon. 
These  wars  made  heroes,  but  evolved  them  through  the  sacrifice  of 
nations  and  of  national  honor. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  history,  with  all  its  lurid  facts  touching  the 
horrors,  waste  and  injustice  of  war,  sane  men,  men  of  critical  judg- 
ment. Christian  men,  persist  in  the  advocacy  of  rapine  and  murder 
as  the  only  feasible  means  of  settling  differences  among  nations. 

The  trend  of  human  events — socially,  economically,  morally,  re- 
ligiously— is  in  the  direction  of  a  purer  philosophy,  of  more  intel- 
ligent and  humane  economic  laws,  of  higher  and  better  methods  of 
preserving  and  cultivating  moral  precepts,  of  a  Christian  civiliza- 
tion world-wide  in  its  scope,  embracing  all  human  interests,  and 
imbued  with  the  real,  living  spirit  of  the  Master. 

Apparently  the  economic  phase  of  this  reformation  is  to-day 
giving  to  the  world  the  most  conspicuous  evidences  of  real  progress. 
We  could  not  admit,  however,  that  the  results  coming  in  this  way 
are  the  greatest,  important  as  they  may  seem,  since  much  of  the 
work  being  done  along  these  lines  is  based  upon  an  uncertain  foun- 
dation and  has  nothing  for  defence  save  the  advantages  that  come 
through  business  relations  and  commercial  transactions.  It  is  but 
an  armistice  for  gain. 

As  the  wants  of  man  increase — and  they  do  with  every  upward 
step  in  civilization — a  wider  and  continually  growing  field  of  pro- 
duction becomes  a  necessity.  Once,  in  the  home,  in  the  family, 
nearly  the  entire  supply  of  materials  needful  for  the  comforts  of 
life  was  produced.  A  house  could  be  builded  with  less  than  a  half 
dozen  tools,  and  little  variety  of  materials. 

Intellectual  growth  and  refined  tastes  demand  a  change  in  man- 
ner of  living,  and  buildings,  furniture,  provisions,  clothing,  trans- 
portation— in  fact,  everything  wdth  which  we  have  to  do — must 
submit  to  transformation. 

Such  have  been  the  changes  in  the  progress  of  civilization  that 


88 

to-day  the  commonly  accepted  necessities  of  life  can  scarcely  be 
supplied  by  a  score  of  peoples  under  as  many  different  climatic  con- 
ditions. The  production  and  exchange  of  that  which  our  higher 
civilization  terms  necessities  is  cultivating  and  fostering  a  spirit  of 
dependence,  a  common  commercial  interest,  a  friendly  spirit.  A 
touch  of  material  interests  as  well  as  a  touch  of  pathos  may  make 
the  world  kin,  and  unquestionably  it  is  doing  so  to-day. 

The  wants  of  man  have  been  the  cause  of  the  development  of 
great  commercial  interests;  and  the  warp  of  these  stupendous  enter- 
prises is  interwoven  with  the  woof  of  the  surplus  of  every  people 
under  the  sun. 

To  make  the  case  stronger  still  in  the  interest  of  universal  peace, 
the  operation  of  this  intricate  machinery  is  dependent  upon  a  uni- 
versal system  of  credit.  A  structure  in  which  the  wealth  of  na- 
tions is  involved  must  be  operated  upon  economic  principles;  and 
disturbances  that  hinder  progress,  that  interfere  ^vith  exchange, 
that  reverse  fortunes,  that  threaten  national  existence  itself,  can- 
not hope  for  encouragement  from  this  commercial  scheme  now  be- 
ing unified  and  brought  to  system  with  astonishing  rapidity. 

It  needs  no  prophetic  vision  to  reveal  the  fact  that  in  the  near 
future  the  financial  and  commercial  interests  of  the  world  will  be 
arrayed  on  the  side  of  imiversal  peace.  No  one  questions  the  fact 
that  the  Turkish  Empire  has  escaped  the  perils  of  more  than  one 
war  because  of  the  financial  interests  that  would  have  been  jeop- 
ardized by  military  conflict.  Nations  as  well  as  men  are  debtors 
and  creditors,  and  as  such  must  operate  upon  business  principles; 
and  the  uncertain  turns  of  military  campaigns  can  hardly  recom- 
mend an  appeal  to  arms  as  a  businesslike  method  of  dealing  with 
controverted  questions  of  national  import. 

Again,  the  limitations  to  conquest  now  thrown  about  civilizsd 
warfare  will  tend  to  discourage  war  as  a  means  for  settlement  of 
differences.  In  former  times  the  additions  of  territory,  the  increase 
of  revenue  from  subjugated  peoples  and  the  spoils  of  war,  including 
not  only  stolen  treasure  and  confiscated  property,  but  the  lives  and 
services  of  the  subdued  people — these  made  war  a  profitable  em- 
ployment, a  means  for  the  accumulation  of  wealth. 

But  economic  interests,  humane  principles,  and  the  higher  light 
that  has  touched  the  human  conscience  have  placed  a  hedge  about 
modern  warfare,  and  the  restrictive  measures  that  have  been  and 
are  being  thrown  about  it  have  deprived  nations  of  the  opportuni- 
ties once  enjoyed  of  making  the  vanquished  people  a  prey  to  the 
greed  of  the  conqueror. 

AVhile  much  financial  gain  may  still  come  to  a  country  through 
conquest,  it  is  a  fact  that  there  is  much  uncertainty  connected  with 
an  enterprise  dependent  wholly  on  military  success,  and  the  im- 
mediate support  of  the  undertaking  must  come  from  the  people, 
the  business  interests,  the  resources  of  the  country  that  chooses 
to  engage  in  war. 


89 

In  the  face  of  modern  civilization  a  nation  must  have  some 
powel-ful  excuse  for  engaging  in  war,  stronger  at  least  than  those 
which  are  given  hy  historians  for  many  of  the  great  struggles  of  the 
past  centuries.  True  it  is  that  excuses  given  to-day  are  of  little 
real  force:  but,  if  compared  with  those  of  earlier  periods,  we  must 
admit  that  there  are  evidences  of  real  progress. 

A  war  in  the  interest  of  humanity  is  a  step  in  advance.  We 
would  condemn  it  as  wrong,  unnecessary  and  unwise;  and  yet  there 
is  hack  of  it  evidence  of  a  development  of  principle  that  will  assert 
itself  against  all  wars  that  the  masses  would  call  unjust,  and  against 
many  of  the  wrongs  which  accompany  military  operations. 

The  world  will  demand  justice  and  equity  in  the  administration 
of  warfare  before  it  will  accept  the  higher  and  broader  truth,  a 
peaceable  adjustment  of  differences  in  accord  with  wisdom  and 
equity.  Nations  may  continue  to  wage  war  for  just  (?)  causes; 
but  more  and  more  will  they  come  to  see  the  lack  of  wisdom  in  the 
choice  of  method  for  settlement  of  differences.  In  fact,  I  am  con- 
strained to  say  that  no  nation  to-day,  that  has  a  just  claim  against 
another  nation,  need  hesitate  a  moment  to  refer  that  claim  to  the 
honored  tribunal  that  the  best  governments  of  the  world  have  pro- 
vided for  the  adjustment  of  international  questions  of  dispute;  and, 
further,  that  when  a  strong  nation  makes  war  on  a  weaker  one, 
in  the  face  of  the  opportunities  now  provided  for  relief,  for  ob- 
taining justice,  it  is  an  admission  of  an  unjust  demand  on  the  part 
of  the  stronger.  The  weaker  nations  make  war  upon  the  stronger 
only  when  forced  to  do  so. 

Our  own  nation  could  have  obtained  more  than  justice  and 
equity  would  have  given  her  in  the  trouble  with  Mexico,  and  she 
could  have  had  it  for  the  asking.  War  became  necessary  because 
we  asked  too  largely.  Our  demands  were  exorbitant.  Mexico 
would  have  given  us  more  than  was  ours  by  right  rather  than  risk 
her  fortunes  in  war.  If  England's  claim  is  just  and  the  demands 
of  the  Boers  unjust,  could  not  England  with  safety  entrust  the  case 
with  the  International  Court? 

Our  own  sad  experience  in  the  Orient  is  but  another  example 
of  a  great  power  making  demands  of  a  weaker  people  and  yet  fail- 
ing to  submit  its  policy  to  a  court  of  arbitration  to  determine  the 
justice  of  the  demand.  There  was  a  question  in  the  minds  of  the 
American  people,  and,  no  doubt,  in  the  minds  of  the  people  of 
other  nations,  as  to  our  real  status  in  the  matter  of  the  Philippine 
Archipelago.  Had  we  waited  and  inquired;  had  an  international 
tribunal  passed  upon  the  question,  it  is  probable  that  the  native 
tribes  would  have  accepted  the  consensus  of  opinion  given  by  dis- 
interested nations,  and  there  would  have  been  little  or  no  war 
necessary  to  establish  the  authority  of  our  government  over  the 
islands,  if  the  ruling  of  the  court  had  been  in  our  favor. 

We  have  a  right  to  hope  that  there  is  a  growth  in  national  con- 
science; that  our  civilization  is  producing  men  who  are  honest  not 


90 

only  in  individual  affairs,  but  in  national  affairs  as  well.  In  every 
school,  in  every  home,  in  every  church,  the  great  principles  of  jus- 
tice, honesty  and  truth  should  be  inculcated,  and  the  instruction 
should  be  broad  enough  and  comprehensive  enough  to  reach  be- 
yond the  limits  of  any  country  or  any  government. 

The  development  under  such  teaching  (and  we  have  much  of  it) 
is  already  a  powerful  barrier  in  the  way  of  war  policies.  One  will 
say,  if  we  fight  for  a  just  cause,  "  God  is  on  the  side  of  right,  and 
right  will  prevail."  Right  may  prevail,  but  not  because  of  the 
wrong-doer.  Victory  does  not  come  as  a  special  favor  to  those  who 
make  war  to  establish  right.  I  am  persuaded  that  the  soldier  on 
the  battlefield  is  the  least  to  be  censured  for  the  wrongs  of  human 
warfare.  It  is  his  "  but  to  do  and  die  ";  but  the  greater  wrong  lies 
with  those  responsible  for  his  deeds,  his  suffering,  his  death.  He 
obeys  the  mandates  of  government,  the  law  under  which  he  lives, 
and  fills  as  best  he  knows,  possibly,  the  place  to  which  his  environ- 
ments have  assigned  him.  Not  so  with  the  teacher,  the  clergyman, 
the  politician,  the  legislator,  the  author  in  the  public  press.  These 
are  moulders  of  public  conscience  that  is  given  expression  in  law 
and  put  into  action  by  the  representatives  of  government. 

To  make  these  factors  in  government  right  in  heart,  in  life,  in 
service,  is  reaching  the  root  of  the  evil.  If  it  is  true  that  "  The 
headship  of  the  English-speaking  people  passed  with  the  opening 
of  the  Twentieth  Century  from  England  to  America,"  then  it  be- 
hooves us  to  assume  the  new  responsibility  not  only  with  the  dig- 
nity that  becomes  a  great  nation,  but  thoughtfully  and  prayerfully; 
for  there  comes  a  charge  to  our  hands  that  demands  considera- 
tion and  bears  large  responsibility.  The  English-speaking  people 
must  have  a  part  in  the  progress  of  the  new  century.  The  ques- 
tions that  are  interesting  this  convention  are  facing  the  world, 
and  their  solution  will  determine  in  a  large  measure  the  growth  and 
character  of  human  society.  If  Epicurean  philosophy  could  work 
moral  ruin  in  Greek  and  Roman  society,  what  may  we  expect  from 
equipage  and  conflict  of  arms  with  the  intelligence  and  inventive 
genius  of  this  portentous  era!  May  we  not  reasonably  anticipate 
all  the  moral  degradation  of  the  past  with  multiplied  exhibitions 
of  destruction,  devastation  and  death  that  follow  in  the  wake  of  the 
military  campaign? 

We  are  led  to  believe  that  the  outlook  is  more  hopeful.  The 
signs  of  the  times  certainly  indicate  an  awakening  of  the  public 
conscience,  a  growth  in  sentiment  against  war  as  a  factor  in  hu- 
man government. 

Again,  immediate  contact  with  the  realities  of  military  life  takes 
from  it  many  of  its  attractions  and  much  of  its  glory.  The  sol- 
diers of  the  civil  war'^were  not  the  most  active  in  advising  the 
nation  to  enter  into  a  military  contest  with  Spain  when  our  diplo- 
matic relations  became  strained.  They  had  seen  and  experienced 
the  realities  of  war.     There  are  multitudes  of  people  Avho  would 


91 

cease  to  advocate  an  appeal  to  arms  if  they  could  but  witness  the 
horrors  of  the  battlefield  for  a  day,  could  understand  the  depths 
of  its  moral  degradation.  The  illustrated  story  of  the  battle,  the 
telegraphic  report,  the  daily  and  almost  hourly  paper  that  tells  of 
the  sutl'ering,  not  of  the  past,  but  of  to-day — these  things  are 
bringing  the  realities  of  war  in  touch  with  the  daily  life  of  those 
at  home,  in  business  circles,  in  legislative  halls,  and  a  whole  people 
can  feel  the  real  burden  as  though  a  part  of  the  actors  in  the 
conflict. 

Society  will  not  long  endure  this  suffering,  this  sadness;  and 
men's  consciences  will  cry  out  against  the  wholesale  slaughter  of 
noble  men,  and  demand  that  more  humane  methods  be  devised  for 
determining  and  settling  national  disputes. 

Much  as  we  may  desire  it,  we  can  no  longer  keep  away  from 
the  sad  view  of  carnage.  Our  ears  can  no  longer  be  closed  to  the 
cry  of  distress,  the  w-ail  of  sorrow.  It  is  at  your  door  and  mine. 
We  read  to-day  the  story  of  suffering  in  South  Africa,  and  know 
it  is  a  living  picture,  the  incident  of  the  hour.  We  are  not  listen- 
ing to  recitals  of  incidents  and  experiences  of  last  w^eek  or  of  last 
year;  but  the  story,  the  picture,  is  a  thing  of  the  present. 

A  people  intelligent,  cultured,  educated.  God-fearing,  cannot 
and  will  not  remain  long  under  such  pressure  and  in  living  touch 
with  such  scenes  of  distress  and  suffering,  such  evidence  of  moral 
corruption,  and  not  cry  out  for  relief  from  this  universal  curse. 

The  Christian  head  may,  it  is  possible,  accept  a  belief  that  war 
is  a  necessity  among  nations,  and  therefore  must  be  defended;  but 
the  Christian  heart,  with  its  love,  its  sympathy,  its  compassion,  its 
self-sacrifice  and  devotion,  cannot  long  stand  and  face  the  fortunes 
of  war  without  experiencing  a  conviction  that  it  is  wholly  wrong 
and  its  very  existence  inexcusable.  Modern  inventions  are  l)ringing 
us  face  to  face  with  what  has  hitherto  been  the  far-off  side  of 
human  warfare.  Heretofore  we  have  seen  the  pageantry  of  mili- 
tary parade,  and  thought  to  applaud.  The  curtain  has  lifted,  and 
with  the  echo  of  the  applause  comes  the  sad  sigh  of  distress,  the 
moan  of  anguish  and  of  death;  and  we  instinctively  shrink  from  the 
pageantry  so  grand,  for  we  know  it  is  but  a  covering  to  hide  a 
monster  of  hideous  mien. 

These  ideas,  by  some,  may  be  called  unpatriotic.  Rather,  inter- 
national arbitration,  universal  peace,  the  abandonment  of  war  as  a 
policy  in  government,  are  in  the  interest  of  a  higher  patriotism. 
Love  of  country  implies  love  of  its  people,  its  institutions,  its  laws. 
It  is  this  love  for  humanity  that  prompts  the  advocacy  of  meas- 
ures that  promote  the  general  good,  that  relieve  society  of  its  griev- 
ous burdens,  that  lessen  suffering  and  sorrow,  that  ennoble  char- 
acter. 

A  government  has  nothing  to  fear  from  a  citizenship  that  would 
refer  all  questions  of  dispute  to  a  court  of  justice  and  equity,  and 


that  abides  by  decisions  of  arbitrators  in  personal  or  national  ques- 
tions of  controversy. 

But  what  of  the  Church?  Where  has  she  been,  and  what  her 
position  in  the  great  struggle  for  relief  from  this  greatest  curse  to 
mankind  through  all  the  records  of  history?  The  pulpit  has  re- 
sounded with  the  eloquence  of  learned  and  renowned  teachers  in 
spiritual  things,  who  have  tried  to  justify  and  sanctify  human  wax- 
fare.  They  have  called  the  thing  righteous,  when  they  must  know 
that  it  has  been  the  means  of  destroying  the  fruits  of  years  of  mis- 
sionary labor.  It  has  blocked  the  way  to  missionary  success,  and 
has  caused  the  uprisings  and  revolts  which  have  resulted  in  the 
massacre  of  multitudes  of  faithful  missionaries  and  untold  thou- 
sands of  the  people  that  have  accepted  the  gospel  through  their 
teaching  and  labors. 

One  could  scarcely  believe  the  story  of  the  Church.  The  pic- 
ture is  too  dark  to  dwell  upon,  and  we  stand  mute  and  condemned. 
There  is  no  excuse  to  offer.  May  we  not  hope  that  those  who  pro- 
fess the  name  of  Christ  are  learning  more  and  more  of  the  real 
spirit  of  the  Master,  and  that  the  professing  Christian  world  is  com- 
ing into  a  better  understanding  of  his  precepts  and  his  life. 

I  am  constrained  to  believe  that  there  is  a  verj'  marked  growth 
of  sentiment  in  the  churches;  that  the  followers  of  the  Christ  are 
learning  this  lesson  as  never  before;  and  that  we  may  confidently  ex- 
pect a  much  more  general  acceptance  of  this  great  gospel  precept, 
as  found  in  the  Golden  Rule,  than  has  been  known  in  the  ages  past. 

( )n  this,  as  well  as  on  every  other  great  social  and  moral  ques- 
tion, there  must  be  a  side  consistent  with  the  Christian  profes- 
sion. Trickery  and  intrigue,  deception  and  falsehood,  secret  con- 
niving and  open  dishonesty,  inhimian  cruelty  and  wholesale  slaugh- 
ter— these  are  acknowledged  requisites  for  successful  campaigning. 
Christ  condemns  them  all;  and  in  place  of  these  he  establishes  for 
his  followers  the  precepts  embodied  in  the  Golden  Rule.  The 
world  accepts  the  one  side  and  conforms  to  its  teachings.  There  is 
no  ])lace  for  the  Church  unless  it  be  on  the  other  side. 

The  Christian  is  not  different  from  the  world  so  long  as  he 
follows  in  the  footsteps  of  the  world;  and  the  kingdom  of  our 
Christ  can  never  grow  strong  by  and  through  the  services  of  men 
who  profess  loyalty  to  him,  but  in  life  continue  to  conform  to  the 
precepts  of  the  world. 

From  every  pulpit  should  this  truth  be  declared,  for  truth  it 
is:  "  There  can  be  no  war  among  the  Christian  nations  of  the 
world  to-day  if  the  Church  as  a  imited  force  will  stand  opposed  to 
it."  Many  of  the  wars  of  history  could  have  been  averted  if  the 
Church  had  fully  comprehended  the  teaching  of  the  Master  on  this 
important  question;  and  at  no  time  has  the  Church  been  more  pow- 
erful than  it  is  to-day  in  shaping  the  course  of  government  and  in 
r.oulding  public  opinion. 

After  all,  the  Church  is,  must   be,  the   most   effective  force  in 


5)o 

this  i-eformation.  And  on  every  hand  we  see  evidences  of  a  change 
of  sentiment,  a  giowtli  of  opinion  in  favor  of  humane  and  reason- 
able methods  of  dealing  with  questions  herotofovo  submitted  to  the 
arbitrament  of  war.  The  work  of  various  Christian  organizations 
of  modern  times  has  tended  to  unify  the  Church,  and  with  this  uni- 
fication of  interest  comes  the  conviction  that  only  through  a  deeper 
spirituality  can  we  hope  to  enjoy  the  full  benefit  of  the  real  power 
of  the  Church,  as  a  united  body  working  for  the  establishment  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  It  is  the  spirit  of  the  Christ  that  the 
Church  must  understand,  must  teach,  must  exemplify  in  human  life, 
that  her  benign  influences  may  be  felt,  her  better  precepts  under- 
stood, and  her  laws  recognized  and  embodied  in  the  governments 
devised  and  operated  for  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  humanity. 

I  am  constrained  to  believe  that  the  advocates  of  peace  are 
becoming  more  practical  in  their  views  and  in  their  teaching.  It 
is  not  ours  merely  to  stand  steadfast  for  a  principle  and  to  suffer 
for  a  testimony.  It  is  ours  to  meet  the  great  and  perplexing  ques- 
tions of  government  and  help  to  solve  them.  Convince  the  na- 
tions of  the  world  that  there  is  a  more  Just  and  more  economic  way 
of  settling  questions  of  dispute,  a  way  more  in  harmony  with  the 
age.  more  helpful  to  society,  more  humane,  more  reasonable,  and 
right  will  prevail,  war  will  be  relegated  to  the  past;  justice  will  rule 
in  the  affairs  of  nations,  and  the  social,  financial,  moral  and  spir- 
itual progress  of  mankind  that  will  follow  will  be  without  parallel 
in  the  history  of  the  world. 

The  Chairman:  The  last  formal  paper  of  this  morning  will 
be  on  "  Woman's  Kesponsibility  and  Opportunities  for  Promoting 
Peace  Principles,"  by  Mary  Jane  Weaver,  of  BataAda.  New^  York. 

WOMAN'S  RESPONSIBILITY  AND  OPPORTUNITIES  FOR 
PROMOTING  PEACE  PRINCIPLES. 

BY  MAEY  JANE  WEAVEE,  BATAVIA,  N.  Y. 

In  a  few  days  we  shall  have  come  up  to  tlie  first  Christmas  of 
this  new  century,  to  the  day  set  apart  to  commemorate  the  birth 
of  him  whose  advent  was  heralded  by  a  multitude  of  the  heavenly 
host,  praising  God  and  saying,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on 
earth  peace,  goodwill  toward  men."  On  that  day  a  multitude  of 
the  earthly  host  of  his  professed  followers  will  take  up  this  same  an- 
them, proclaiming  it  far  and  wide.  If  only  a  deeper  comprehen- 
sion of  this  wonderful  proclamation  and  the  responsibility  resting 
upon  us  for  its  fulfillment  could  come  to  all  God's  children  this 
Christmastide  than  they  have  ever  known  before,  this  gospel  of 
peace  would  have  a  voice  every  day  in  the  year,  and  would  soon  be 
published  everywhere  in  all  its  fulness  and  blessedness. 

Certainly  the  time  has  come  when  there  should  be  concerted, 
persistent  effort  on  the  part  of  peace-loving  Christians  to  get  the 


94 

ear  and  reach  the  heart,  particularly  of  the  Church  at  large.  Min- 
isters of  the  gospel  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  are  in  the  main  silent 
on  this  subject.  With  them  an  arrest  of  thought  on  this  line  is 
absolutely  necessary,  and  I  hope  that  some  means  may  be  devised 
at  this  Conference,  having  this  end  in  view.  Somehow  this  leaven 
should  be  worked  into  the  masses  also. 

Friends  from  the  first  have  believed  that  war  is  entirely  con- 
trary to  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  the  spirit  of  the  gospel;  hence 
the  promulgation  of  the  principles  of  peace  in  an  earnest,  forceful 
way  is  entirely  consistent  with  our  attitude.  This  is  a  message 
God  would  have  us  bear  to  the  world.  How  can  we  be  true  to  Him, 
or  consistent  with  our  profession  except  we  are  doing  all  we  can 
to  bring  this  great  truth  to  bear  on  the  minds  and  consciences  of 
all  we  can  reach?  Being  right  ourselves  is  not  sufficient.  AYe  must 
agitate  and  educate. 

While  I  rejoice  in  all  peace  societies  the  world  over,  I  believe  the 
Eeligious  Society  of  Friends  ought  to  be  the  strongest,  the  most 
pronounced  and  the  most  aggressive  of  them  all.  Our  responsi- 
bilities are  measured  by  our  opportunities,  and  in  our  Society 
women  have  large  opportunities  and  privileges,  such  as  are  not  ac- 
corded in  any  other  branch  of  the  Church.  Within  our  wide  field 
of  service  the  way  is  open  for  them  as  for  men.  Some  one  has 
said:  "  When  Christian  womanhood  is  aroused  she  will  make  war 
upon  war  with  weapons  that  are  mighty,  for  the  great  forge  in 
which  her  weapons  will  be  cast  is  the  forge  of  God  Almighty  him- 
self." 

It  would  seem  that  women  who  pay  the  first  cost  of  human  life, 
who  go  down  into  the  jaws  of  death  to  become  the  mothers  of  men, 
would  naturally  protest  against  the  destruction,  in  the  awful  carn- 
age of  war,  of  a  treasure  so  precious;  that  mother-love  would  rebel 
against  a  system  which  takes  from  her  the  son  in  whom  she  has 
invested  so  much  from  infancy  to  manhood,  and,  if  occasion  re- 
quires, places  him  where  he  must  do  his  best  to  destroy  the  life 
of  others,  or  give  up  his  own  life  in  the  attempt,  and  this  in  the 
face  of  God's  command,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill." 

Those  of  us  whose  eyes  are  open  to  the  great  crime  and  wrong 
of  war  must  not  fail  in  our  duty  to  arouse  Christian  women,  par- 
ticularly, to  a  consciousness  of  this,  or  we  shall  be  answerable  for 
the  consequences  of  our  neglect;  we  shall  be  brought  into  account 
for  sins  of  omission  as  well  as  sins  of  commission.  Woman  can 
and  consequently  ought  to  engage  in  this  work.  In  behalf  of  her 
own  sex  she  should  do  this.  The  degradation  and  utter  ruin  of 
women  in  connection  with  army  life  is  appalling,  and  certainly  is 
a  motive  sufficient  to  lead  women  who  love  home  and  purity,  and 
who  regard  the  sanctity  of  the  marriage  relation,  to  a  vigorous  and 
persistent  protest  against  the  system  which  makes  such  crime  and 
shame  a  possible  thing  among  civilized  people. 

A  recent  incident  is  a  case  in  point.     It  is  related  by  Corporal 


95 

Diffenderfer,  of  West  Chester,  l*a.,  who  has  recently  returned  with 
a  company  of  soldiers  from  the  Philippines.  He  said:  "  There  was 
a  somewhat  remarkable  scene  when  we  left  for  home,  on  account  of 
the  wives  which  many  of  the  soldiers  had  taken  to  themselves  while 
on  the  island.  The  women  over  there  are  purchased  for  from 
five  dollars  each  upward,  and  nearly  every  soldier  has  one.  When 
we  came  away,  of  course  it  was  impossi&le  for  the  men  to  bring 
them  along.  But  when  we  arrived  at  the  port  from  which  we 
sailed  it  was  found  that  one  of  the  governors  of  a  province  had  sent 
about  one  hundred  of  the  wives  to  the  port,  and  every  one  of 
them  wanted  to  come  with  us.  There  was  no  end  of  trouble,  until 
the  matter  was  adjusted  by  the  officers,  who  persuaded  the  women 
to  remain  at  home." 

What  a  spectacle!  What  a  reproach  to  a  Christian  nation  which 
has  been  praying  God  to  bless  it  in  its  effort  to  subjugate  the  poor, 
ignorant  Filipinos  by  force  of  arms,  that  it  might  civilize  and 
Christianize  them!  And  then  the  ruinous  effect  of  such  deeds  upon 
the  soldiers  themselves,  and  through  them  upon  others,  when  they 
come  back  to  their  loved  ones  so  demoralized!  This  ought  to 
stir  every  woman  to  valiant  deeds  in  opposition  to  war.  May  the 
Lord  waken  us  up  to  our  responsibility! 

Women's  opportunities  for  work  along  this  line  are  so  many  and 
so  varied  that  it  would  be  hard  to  enumerate  them  all,  but  I  will 
mention  some  that  impress  me  as  very  important. 

First,  the  mother's  duty  in  regard  to  teaching  her  children  in 
moral  and  spiritual  things.  Dr.  Vincent  says:  "  Home  teaching  is 
above  every  other,  and  should  have  first  place.  It  has  the  first  op- 
portunity with  the  child.  Its  priority  gives  it  superiority.  It  has 
the  firm  confidence  of  the  child.  It  has  the  fervent  love  of  the 
child.  It  has  unchallenged  authority.  It  has  unconscious  in- 
fluence. It  has  the  opportunity  to  illustrate.  It  has  the  oppor- 
tunity to  reiterate."  Xo  danger  of  beginning  too  early.  This 
should  be  in  the  truest  sense  an  infant  school.  And  while  we  try 
to  bring  the  great  truths  of  religion  within  the  comprehension  of 
the  children,  we  should  also  give  them  reasons  why  we  believe  cer- 
tain things  to  be  right  or  wrong,  which  others  about  us  do  not  see 
as  we  do.  Particularly  in  these  days  of  militarism,  when  the  pomp 
and  circumstance  of  war  seem  to  have  such  place  with  the  people, 
should  we  endeavor  to  impress  the  children  with  the  teachings  of 
our  Saviour  in  regard  to  peace.  This  is  a  very  important  thing, 
that  they  may  be  fortified  and  prepared  to  meet  the  temptations 
that  will  beset  them  as  they  enter  school  life,  and  come  in  touch 
with  influences  outside  the  home.  If  children  could  be  taught  to 
settle  their  difficulties  by  arbitration,  they  would  be  learning  a 
very  important  lesson,  and  one  that  would  be  a  blessing  to  them 
all  their  lives. 

The  large  majority  of  Bible  and  secular  school  teachers  are 
women,  and  they  have  much  to  do  with  moulding  character.     If 


96 

they  were  only  advocates  of  peace,  what  an  influence  for  good  they 
would  exert  in  turning  the  current  of  the  child's  thought  into  the 
right  channel.  If  our  children  are  to  remain  in  fellowship  with 
us,  and  be  loyal  and  faithful  Friends,  and  be  trvie  to  our  principles 
and  testimonies,  they  must  have  clear,  intelligent  views  of  the 
truth,  and  be  able  to  give  to  the  world  a  reason  for  the  faith  that 
is  in  them. 

The  hope  of  the  future  is  in  the  children  of  to-day.  If  mothers 
and  teachers  were  conscious  of  their  blessed  opportunities  and  great 
responsibilities,  and  were  doing  their  best  to  train  up  the  children 
in  the  way  they  should  go,  what  mighty  influence  for  good  would  be 
set  in  motion  through  the  men  and  women  of  the  next  generation. 

Our  children  should  be  familiar  with  all  that  has  been  and  is 
being  done  for  international  arbitration.  They  should  be  impressed 
with  a  loftier,  nobler  idea  of  heroism  than  war  at  its  very  best  has 
ever  been  able  to  inspire.  They  should  be  taught  concerning  the 
cost  of  war,  the  awful  destruction  of  human  life, — a  thing  which 
God  alone  can  give  and  which  he  alone  has  the  right  to  take, — and 
how  enormously  prolific  it  is  of  vice  and  crime,  cruelty,  drunken- 
ness and  licentiousness.  Military  drill  in  schools,  many  of  our  chil- 
dren's toys  and  story-books,  and  pictures  in  our  homes  and  on 
the  walls  of  our  schoolhouses,  engender  and  foster  a  military  spirit. 

Physical  culture  is  important.  The  body  should  be  trained  as 
well  as  the  intellect.  Our  children  must  have  playthings  and  books 
suited  to  their  capacity.  All  this  could  be  provided  for  without 
objectionable  features,  if  mothers  and  teacliers  would  bring  their 
influence  to  bear  towards  eliminating  that  which  is  harmful,  and 
putting  into  its  place  that  which  is  harmless  and  which  would  tend 
to  educate  along  right  lines. 

"What  a  power  for  good  or  evil  the  mother  holds  within  her 
grasp!  "  I  saw  the  Holy  Spirit  shining  in  my  mother's  face,"  said 
a  college  professor,  "  and  her  piety  and  faithfulness  drew  us,  a  large 
family,  saie  into  the  service  of  the  Master,  though  our  father  was 
not  a  Christian  until  we  were  all  grown  up."  Love  is  the  highest 
and  most  potent  of  human  qualities,  and  the  mother  has  this 
mighty  agent  at  her  service.  A  habit  of  referring  everything  to 
the  arbitration  of  our  Heavenly  Father  is  the  very  best  form  of  gov- 
ernment in  a  home;  and  in  this  way  peacemakers  are  trained. 

The  mother  should  claim  the  same  right  to  life,  liberty  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness  for  her  son  that  is  accorded  her  daughter. 
This  cannot  be  while  war  exists.  The  peace-loving  mother  should 
go  with  her  children  into  their  school  life.  Our  text-books  on  his- 
tory, the  most  of  them,  glorify  war,  teaching  that  in  the  strength 
and  efficiency  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  nations  in  large  measure 
rest  their  glory  and  power.  Men  of  war  are  set  before  them  as  he- 
roes. Until  these  books  can  be  changed — a  thing  concerning  which 
something  has  been  already  done — this  teaching  must  be  counter- 
acted by  that  of  the  home.    There  the  mother  has  her  chance. 


97 

If  women  who  are  teachers  would  use  their  influence  to  secure 
the  writing  of  ess<iys  and  papers  on  peace  and  arbitration  by  stu- 
dents in  our  schools, — the  public  schools  and  those  of  higher  grade. 
— the  reading  of  these  and  their  discussion  in  lyceums  and  literary 
societies  particularly  would  result  in  the  formation  of  peace  senti- 
ment, and  lasting  impressions  would  be  made  on  the  minds  of  those 
who  took  the  time  to  prepare  the  papers  and  those  who  listened 
to  them. 

Our  children  and  youth  should  know  what  generals  and  those 
regarded  as  military  heroes  have  said  against  war.  A  gathering  up 
and  presentation  of  the  utterances  of  those  who  know  most  about 
it,  who  speak  from  actual  experience,  would  be  a  forceful  lesson  in 
education  along  the  path  of  peace  and  international  arbitration. 

Women  to-day  ought  to  be  in  close  touch  with  all  reform  move- 
ments. The  way  is  clear  for  this.  Those  of  us  who  are  doing  what 
we  can  ought  to  be  adding  to  these  tides  of  influence  by  inducing 
others  to  join  us  in  our  efforts, — not  simply  to  accept  our  theories, 
but  to  work  with  us. 

I'his  is  a  day  of  organizations,  particularly  among  women,  for 
moral,  religious,  social  and  literary  purposes.  The  Women's  Chris- 
tian Temperance  Union,  which  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  most  efficient 
of  them  all,  is  the  only  one  with  which  I  am  familiar  which  has  a 
department  of  Peace  and  Arbitration.  This,  under  the  leadership 
of  our  friend,  Hannah  J.  Bailey,  in  the  National  and  World's 
W.  C.  T.  U.,  is  a  power  for  righteousness.  But  I  do  not  know  of 
a  literary  circle  among  women  where  this  has  a  place  on  the  pro- 
gram, except  among  Friends  or  where  introduced  by  Friends.  I 
would  suggest  that  in  our  home  neighborhoods  we  take  occasion 
to  get  a  hearing  on  this  subject,  particularly  before  societies  organ- 
ized for  study  and  investigation. 

Then  we  have  our  peace  literature,  which  is  religious  and  con- 
vincing, and  which  ought  to  have  a  wide  circulation.  A  large  class 
of  intelligent,  thoughtful  readers  would  be  reached  through  the 
insertion  into  the  papers  and  magazines  of  the  day,  both  secular 
and  religious,  of  articles  on  peace  and  arbitration.  The  press,  par- 
ticularly the  religious  press,  is  a  mighty  lever,  and  ought  to  be  used 
in  lifting  people  up  into  the  clear  atmosphere  of  God's  truth,  where 
they  can  see  light  in  his  light  concerning  this  matter.  Here  is  a 
wide  field  for  the  activities  of  women. 

We  must  work  outward  along  all  lines  if  we  would  reach  the 
masses  with  this  truth.  Above  and  beyond  every  other  power  in 
the  hands  of  women  in  our  Society  should  be  our  work  in  the  minis- 
try of  the  gospel.  We  have  the  privilege  of  proclaiming  to  the  world, 
under  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  the  name  of  him  who  came 
from  the  Father  into  this  world  "  to  guide  our  feet  into  the  way  of 
peace,"  that  "  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given;  and 
the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder;  and  his  name  shall  be 
called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty    God,    the    Everlasting 


98 

Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government 
and  peace  there  shall  be  no  end."  While  this  refers,  no  doubt,  to 
the  eifect  of  Christ's  work  upon  the  heart  of  the  individual,  bring- 
ing the  will  of  man  into  harmony  with  the  will  of  God,  it  must 
refer  also  to  the  matter  of  peace  among  men  and  nations. 

Therefore,  we  should  not  only  be  loyal  subjects  of  His  spiritual 
kingdom,  but  as  his  ambassadors  we  should  bear  to  the  world  his 
message  of  love  and  goodwill,  and,  clad  in  the  armor  of  God, 
skilled  in  the  use  of  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  we  should  ceaselessly 
wage  our  peaceful  warfare  against  everything  which  interferes 
with  the  spread  of  his  kingdom  and  the  establishment  of  righteous- 
ness and  peace  on  the  earth. 

The  Chaikman:  We  have  closed  the  papers  two  minutes  un- 
der schedule  time,  and  so  there  will  be  time  for  the  discussion  of 
them;  the  discussion  will  be  opened  by  S.  Edgar  Nicholson,  of  Bal- 
timore. 

S.  Edgae  Nicholson:  It  is  probable  that  among  the  Friends 
gathered  in  this  Conference  there  is  only  one  opinion  as  regards  the 
undesirability,  the  inexpediency  and  the  wrongfulness  of  war.  Be- 
lieving as  we  do,  therefore,  our  obligations  are  two-fold  in  charac- 
ter. First,  we  must  of  necessity  spread  the  doctrines  of  peace  intel- 
ligently and  forcefully  among  the  largest  possible  number  of  Chris- 
tian people,  till  they,  with  us,  are  possessed  of  a  conscience  that 
says  that  war  is  both  wrong  and  inexpedient.  Second,  we  must  put 
forth  constant  effort  to  solve  present-day  problems  in  a  practical 
way,  that  will  make  the  avoidance  of  war  not  only  possible,  but  real. 

Undoubtedly  Friends  have  been  widely  and  grossly  misunder- 
stood on  the  question,  perhaps  at  times  through  unwise  presenta- 
tion of  our  beliefs,  and  untimely  denunciations  of  existing  condi- 
tions, and  sometimes  because  of  a  disinclination  of  others  to  recog- 
nize the  basis  of  our  position.  By  some  we  have  seemed  to  be  op- 
posed to  the  government,  with  no  heart  of  sympathy  for  national 
interests  or  for  the  national  welfare,  and  yet  measured  from  the 
standpoint  of  genuine  and  intense  interest  in  all  that  makes  for 
good  government,  good  citizenship  and  the  exemplification  of  the 
highest  types  of  Christian  manhood,  it  is  to  be  doubted  if  a  more 
patriotic  people  exists  in  our  land. 

To  my  mind,  the  problem  of  peace  is  the  problem  of  co-opera- 
tion with  government  in  the  effort  to  solve  governmental  problems. 
The  peace  idea  projected  on  any  other  basis  must  fail.  It  is  not 
sufficient  to  denounce  war  and  say  it  is  wrong.  That  may  satisfy 
individual  conscience,  but  it  affords  little  consolation  to  the  officials 
of  government,  perplexed  by  grave  national  or  international  dis- 
turbances, to  be  simply  told  that  war  is  wrong  in  the  abstract,  with 
no  spirit  of  co-operation  manifested,  and  only  words  of  censure 
given.     I  would  not  be  understood  as  criticising  the  advocates  of 


99 

peace,  but  only  am  constrained  to  emphasize  that  which  seems  to 
me  of  supreme  importance — the  fact  that  the  problem  of  peace  is 
the  problem  of  co-operation  with  government  in  the  solution  of  its 
difficult  problems. 

When  the  difficulties  with  Spain  were  beginning  to  culminate, 
and  the  storm  cloud  was  gathering,  and  men,  moved  seemingly  })y 
humanitarian  love  for  Cuba,  were  clamoring  for  inhumanitarian 
treatment  of  Spain,  had  the  advocates  of  peace  been  strongly 
enough  allied  to  have  given  potent  assistance  to  the  President  in 
holding  in  check  the  war  spirit  until  peaceable  measures  could  have 
worked  the  deliverance  of  Cuba,  as  the  President  evidently  believed 
could  be  done,  that  struggle  would  probably  have  been  avoided. 

When  Spanish  rule  had  been  overthrown  in  the  Philippines, 
later  events  that  have  brought  deplorable  bloodshed  could 
probably  have  been  avoided,  if  peace  advocates  could  have  led  the 
administration  to  immediate  and  friendly  treaty  with  the  natives. 
If  it  be  said  that  the  spirit  of  greed  made  that  impossible,  it  is 
only  to  say  that  peace,  as  opposed  to  war,  has  not  yet  become  prac- 
tical and  potent.  For,  if  peace  principles  cannot  be  assimilated  in 
our  mechanism  of  government  to  the  subduing  of  other  influences 
which  are  selfish  and  designing,  we  are  hardly  in  position  to  com- 
plain of  the  results. 

But  back  of  all  this  is  a  subject  that  is  more  vital  yet  to  the 
question  of  the  abolition  of  war.  When  the  advocates  of  peace  can 
be  so  thoroughly  united  and  organized  that  they  can  take  proper 
hold  of  governmental  problems,  when  the  issues  are  forming  that 
ordinarily  culminate  in  war,  and  are  able  to  give  such  direction 
that  peaceable  solutions  are  assured,  then  will  war  be  at  an  end, 
among  civilized  peoples  at  least.  Whatever  other  results  may 
grow  out  of  this  Conference,  I  believe  that  lasting  good  would  be 
accomplished  by  laying  the  groundwork  of  a  system  for  the  proper 
study  of  all  questions  that  may  lead  to  national  or  international 
differences.  Xot  only  that,  but  the  day  of  our  fondest  hopes 
would  be  hastened  were  we  able  to  project  the  peace  movement 
on  such  a  basis  that  at  all  times  there  would  be  the  closest  and 
most  cordial  relationship  existing  between  peace  advocates  and  the 
administration. 

I  am  the  more  impelled  to  this  belief  by  the  conviction  that 
governments  are  not  likely  to  abandon  war  because  of  the  simple 
declaration  that  war  is  wrong.  Deplorable  as  it  is,  and  however 
it  may  indicate  a  condition  of  moral  degeneracy,  I  doubt  if  the 
world  reaches  a  condition  of  absolute  peace  without  the  manifested 
agencies  of  causes  that  are  secular,  absolutely  selfish  it  may  be, 
and  wholly  outside  of  purely  religious  considerations.  The  belief 
that  peace  is  the  rule  of  Christ,  established  for  human  conduct, 
must  ever  be  the  incentive  for  the  right  initiation  of  peace  move- 
ments, and  in  fact  must  ever  stimulate  aggressive  efforts  in  the  pro- 
motion of  peace,  but  the  fact  remains  that  we  must  be  able  to  touch 


100 

» 

other  forces,  that  of  themselves  will  greatly  aid,  and  perhaps  be 
the  final  determining  influence's,  in  the  solution  of  our  national  and 
international  differences. 

The  pioneers  of  the  agitation  on  the  question  of  human  slavery 
were  impelled  by  the  overwhelming  idea  that  human  slavery  is 
wrong,  and  were  possessed  of  a  conscience  on  the  subject  that 
voiced  itself  in  a  thousand  ways,  but  it  was  only  when  the  more 
secular  and  selfish  ideas  of  political  expediency  were  injected 
into  the  question  that  the  doom  of  slavery  was  sealed.  True,  had 
the  Quaker  idea  on  the  subject  been  early  adopted  as  the  rule  of 
practice,  and  had  we  been  in  position  to  impress  the  importance  of 
human  freedom  upon  the  thought  of  the  nation,  the  Civil  War 
might  have  been  avoided;  but  the  day  of  settlement  having  been 
postponed,  it  seemed  that  other  forces  inevitably  would  become 
even  paramount  in  the  final  issue. 

To-day  the  advocates  of  temperance  reform  denounce  the  saloon 
system  as  being  wrong  and  immoral,  and  undoubtedly  the  issue 
should  be  determined  from  that  basis,  but  already  economic  ques- 
tions have  injected  themselves  forcibly  into  the  matter,  and  they, 
with  other  similar  agencies,  will,  we  believe,  hasten  the  doom  of 
this  agency  of  evil. 

Similarly  is  the  promulgation  of  the  peace  cause.  The  tend- 
ency of  the  civilized  nations  to  consider  arbitration  as  the  best 
means  of  settling  international  differences,  is  probably  the  most 
hopeful  indication  we  have  of  the  ultimate  triumph  of  this  move- 
ment. Whatever  we  may  do  to  bring  about  the  agreement  before 
hand  to  settle  all  differences  by  a  court  of  arbitration,  will  make 
us  a  factor  in  the  ushering  in  of  the  era  of  world-wide  peace. 

Another  influential  element  working  for  peace  is  the  wide- 
spread recognition  of  mutual  commercial  interests  by  the  civilized 
nations.  When  this  recognition  becomes  more  universal,  nations 
v/ill  be  less  inclined  to  go  to  war,  and  will  be  more  ready  to  find 
peaceable  means  of  settlement,  and  the  day  will  be  hastened  when 
some  future  International  Conference  will  unite  in  an  agreement 
which,  when  adopted,  will  be  recognized  as  binding,  and  wars  will 
be  remembered  only  in  history. 

Meanwhile,  let  this  agitation  go  on.  Sentiment  created,  crys- 
tallized and  organized  is  a 'mighty  force  in  public  affairs.  Let  us 
bo  sure  of  our  own  ground,  be  ready  to  keep  in  touch  with  every 
other  legitimate  force  at  work  for  the  establishment  of  the  princi- 
ples we  advocate,  seek  to  co-operate  more  and  more  in  a  system- 
atic way  with  our  government  in  the  consideration  of  perplexing 
questions  and,  better  than  all,  get  in  position  to  give  direction  to 
great  governmental  problems,  and  some  glad  day  there  will  be  the 
realization  of  our  hopes,  the  sword  will  be  beaten  into  plowshares, 
the  reign  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  will  become  universal,  and  the 
prophecy  will  become  a  fact  that  "  The  knowledge  of  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  will  cover  the  earth  as  the  waters  do  the  sea." 


101 

The  Chairman:  The  subject  is  now  open  for  general  discus- 
sion in  fivo-minute  speeches. 

David  Newport:  At  a  meeting  held  in  this  city  just  before 
the  Civil  War  there  was  a  little  woman,  known  to  many  of  us,  who 
was  called  to  speak.  Her  text  was  this:  "  The  weapons  of  our 
warfare  are  not  carnal,  but  mighty  through  God  to  the  pulling 
down  of  strongholds."  She  spoke,  I  suppose,  about  fifteen  min- 
utes, and  when  she  had  concluded  she  met  with  a  wonderful  re- 
ception from  the  audience. 

The  cause  of  it  was  the  great  superiority  of  her  remarks  over 
those  of  the  speakers  who  had  preceded  her.  It  was  the  dark 
period  before  war.  There  seemed  not  a  ray  of  hope.  Frederick 
Douglas  was  in  great  agitation.  Wendell  Phillips  thought  the 
chains  of  the  slaves  riveted  more  firmly  than  ever.  She  plead  that 
the  remedy  was  to  be  found  in  the  spiritual,  in  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  that  with  this  there  could  be  no  failure.  She 
thus  kindled  great  hope  in  the  minds  of  those  present. 

Socrates,  as  reported  by  Plato,  speaking  of  the  causes  of  war, 
says  that  they  grow  out  of  the  carnal  mind,  of  the  animal  nature, 
and  that  the  remedy  is  to  be  found  in  the  spiritual.  The  animal 
man  delights  in  quarreling  and  fighting.  He  delights  in  hearing 
of  war  championship  and  heroism.  The  very  thought  of  it  pleases 
him.     But  with  the  spiritual  man  it  is  otherwise. 

The  thought  I  wish  to  express  is  that  the  cure  for  war  is 
spiritual.  It  is  the  Spirit  of  God  that  worketh  in  men  to  will  and 
to  do  of  His  good  pleasure,  in  the  home  circle,  in  the  circle  outside 
of  the  home,  and  in  the  commerce  and  business  of  the  world.  This 
is  the  truth  which  we  must  inculcate,  that  the  spiritual  weapons 
are  mighty  through  God  to  the  pulling  down  of  strongholds.  I 
am  not  discouraged.  The  paper  read  by  our  brother  was  a  very 
encouraging  one. 

Mariana  W.  Chapman:  I  find  myself  at  heart  in  unity  with 
many  of  the  speakers;  not  only  the  last  one,  who  declares  that 
spiritual  weapons  are  the  best;  but  also  with  the  friend  who  opened 
the  discussion,  who  declares  that  a  little  secular  work  must  be 
done,  and  that  things  must  become  expedient  in  government  before 
they  can  be  successful.  I  think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  one 
of  the  most  important  things  to  get  behind  Congress  is  a  peace 
constituency,  and  I  do  not  know  a  larger  constituency  of  peace-lov- 
ing people  in  this  country  than  the  womanhood  of  America.  I 
believe,  therefore,  that  you  will  have  your  true  peace  force  behind 
this  government  when  you  admit  women  to  a  voice  in  the  govern- 
ment, when  their  opinions  are  not  only  influence,  but  are  counted 
at  the  ballot-box  as  well. 


102 

William  L.  Pearson:  George  Fox  used  to  have  his  "  open- 
ings." You  have  all  read  of  them.  If  any  Modern  got  near  the 
heart  of  the  Almighty,  it  was  he.  I  am  reminded  this  morning 
that  some  of  those  "  openings  "  were  toward  the  house  of  Crom- 
well, and  that  some  of  his  most  effective  work  and  personal  con- 
ferences with  men  were  with  Oliver  Cromwell. 

We  have  a  President  of  the  United  States  who  embodies  in  his 
character  something  of  the  Cromwellian,  modified,  of  course,  by 
the  spirit  of  our  own  times.  But  have  we  a  true  insight  into  the 
Divine  sources  of  peace,  and  have  we  the  courage  of  our  convic- 
tions, to  put  our  power  into  use  with  the  administration  at  the  pres- 
ent time?  We  need  our  practical  side  of  life.  All  our  theories  and 
brilliant  discussions  may  be  of  small  value  unless  we  do  in  some 
way  make  ourselves  felt  by  approaching  those  who  can  turn  the 
affairs  of  men,  politically  speaking.  I  believe  that  we  should  make 
a  great  mistake  in  this  Conference  if  we  did  not  in  some  way  rec- 
ognize the  truly  benevolent  purpose  of  the  present  Administration 
toward  the  islands  of  the  seas  that  have  come  into  our  possession. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  by  all  means  try  to  realize  the 
leaven  of  war  spirit  that  is  leavening  the  whole  lump  of  society, 
permeating  it  unobserved,  perhaps,  by  the  heads  of  government, 
and  perhaps  too  little  observed  by  ourselves.  Let  us  beware  of 
what  is  coming  from  it,  of  what  is  even  now  being  effected  by  it. 
Let  us  do  our  part,  as  we  are  assembled  here,  and  see  that  the  use- 
fulness of  this  Conference  shall  be  the  very  greatest  in  counteract- 
ing this  growing  power  of  evil. 

Mary  Chawner  Woody:  It  seems  to  me  that  our  peace  prin- 
ciples have  been  too  much  theory;  they  have  not  been  properly  set 
forth  in  practical  form;  we  have  not  had  the  far-sighted  thinking  to 
bring  them  down  to  practical  application  in  times  of  necessity. 
There  is  no  doubt,  as  was  hinted,  that  the  President,  at  the  time  of 
the  Cuban  crisis,  was  waiting  and  waiting  and  waiting  for  some 
person's  "  openings "  to  lead  him  into  some  peaceable  way.  It 
is  in  such  ways  as  that  that  the  workers  for  peace  have  failed;  too 
much  theory,  not  enough  preparation  for  practical  action.  Our 
women  have  failed  to  make  sentiment  and  thus  to  make  ready  for 
emergencies.  When  such  papers  as  were  filled  with  the  war  spirit 
came  into  our  homes  and  the  men  folk  of  the  family  came  in  with 
their  heads  full  of  the  war  sensations  and  excitement,  our  heads 
were  not  cool  enough  to  quiet  them  down.  It  does  seem  to  me 
that,  after  all,  whether  women  have  the  ballot  or  not,  there  is  a 
powerful  force  that  they  may  apply  in  the  home.  They  must  be 
prepared  to  meet  such  emergencies.  Why  cannot  the  President  of 
Bryn  Mawr,  as  she  has  told  us,  carry  the  girls  with  her  on  the  sub- 
ject of  peace?  We  send  to  that  institution  the  best  girls  we  have. 
Where  does  the  trouble  rest?  Was  the  Jesuit  priest  right  when  he 
said  that  the  first  eight  years  would  determine  the  character  of 


103 

the  child?  It  certainly  is,  it  would  seem  to  me,  or  the  President 
of  Bryn  Mawr  College  could  lead  the  girls  on  this  subject. 
Women,  let  us  go  back  to  our  work,  to  the  mothers'  meetings,  to  the 
women  in  the  factory  towns,  to  the  women  all  over  the  country, 
to  teach  them  to  teach  the  children,  that  we  may  thus  create  the 
sentiment  that  will  hold  the  nation  steady  until  the  men  who 
formulate  great  principles  shall  be  able  to  carry  them  through  in 
times  when  great  diplomacy  is  needed. 

Davis  Furnas:  I  have  been  much  interested  in  hearing  from 
the  various  speakers  and  the  various  essays  that  have  been  read 
the  idea  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man. 
I  believe  in  that.  The  All-Father  who  created  all  men  and  re- 
quires of  all  to  give  an  account  of  the  deeds  done  in  the  body  is 
the  controlling  influence,  if  they  will  but  receive  it,  over  all  man- 
kind. Now,  what  I  want  to  say  is  this:  We  have  heard  this  morn- 
ing about  the  proper  training  of  children.  We  tell  our  children  in 
the  Sabbath  Schools  that  there  are  people  far  off  who  are  so  low 
that  we  must  go  and  teach  them,  and  that  we  must  give  money  to 
bring  about  that  object.  We  ought  to  be  careful  not  to  do  this 
in  such  a  way  as  to  inculcate  the  idea  that  they  are  a  different 
order  of  beings  from  ourselves;  that  they  are  down  almost  to  the 
level  of  the  brute  creation.  We  should  seek  to  leave  the  impres- 
sion that  they  are  the  children  of,  and  under  the  influence  of,  the 
same  Eternal  Power  that  we  claim  as  our  Father  and  Guide;  and 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  recognize  them  as  brothers.  Otherwise  the 
children  may  get  a  very  false  impression  of  the  brotherhood  of 
man. 

Dr.  Moeeow:  I  have  the  honor  of  being  the  Secretary  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Bible  Society,  and  I  have  been  very  much  struck  with 
the  use  made  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  spirit  of  prayer  in  this 
Convention.  When  the  Peace  Convention  was  held  in  Rome,  there 
was  no  prayer.  Nothing,  I  believe,  gives  to  us  such  strength  as  our 
conscious  dependence  upon  the  Spirit  of  God. 

I  heard  a  peculiar  story  about  an  African  recently  of  the  sup- 
posed influence  of  the  Bil:)le  upon  a  dog.  He  said  to  a  missionary 
that  he  was  in  great  distress  about  this  dog.  The  dog  had  been 
a  great  fighter.  "  But,"  said  he,  "  he  ate  up  my  New  Testament, 
and  all  the  fight  has  been  taken  out  of  him."  There  is  a  moral  in 
this  story  which  we  may  fairly  enough  take  into  our  hearts,  that 
the  spirit  of  the  Book  is  the  spirit  of  peace. 

When  it  was  said  just  now  that  the  ladies  were  to  bring  up 
their  children  in  the  way  they  should  go,  I  thought  of  what  was 
said  in  a  mothers'  meeting  in  Chicago  not  long  ago,  that  that 
was  excellent  advice  for  the  mothers,  but  perhaps  they  had  better 
go  the  same  way  themselves  two  or  three  times.  Isn't  that  what 
is  needed,  not  merely  the  telling  the  children  about  peace,  but 


104 

doing  all  that  we  can  to  show  a  determination  against  the  war  spirit 
and  the  soldier  life?  There  is  no  man  in  society  to-day  more  pop- 
ular than  the  soldier,  and  the  mothers  are  not  going  in  the  way 
they  ought  to  go;  they  are  training  up  their  children  in  the  army 
spirit,  or  the  navy  spirit. 

It  was  said  not  ve^  long  ago  by  a  Jewish  rabbi  in  this  city, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  had  His  limitations,  because  He  used  physical 
force  in  carrying  out  His  reform;  that  He  made  a  whip  and  drove 
the  traders  out  of  the  temple.  But  it  is  certain  that  Jesus  never 
struck  a  man.  The  translation  which  we  have  is  bad  and  mislead- 
ing. The  correct  version  indicates  that  the  whip  was  made  to 
drive  out  the  sheep  and  the  oxen.  Jesus  never  struck  a  man.  He 
comes  under  none  of  the  limitations  of  His  own  time.  He  is  larger, 
fuller,  universal.  He  has  the  right  of  truth  to  be  called  the  Prince 
of  Peace.  I  plead  that  we  may  enter  into  the  thought  of  our  de- 
pendence upon  God.  He  rules.  He  overrules  all  conspiracies,  all 
rebellions,  revolutions  and  wars,  for  the  purpose  of  pushing  back 
the  darkness  and  bringing  in  the  reign  of  light  and  peace. 

Dr.  Morrow  then  offered  a  short  prayer  for  the  blessing  of  God 
to  rest  upon  the  deliberations  of  the  Conference. 

EuFus  M.  Jones:  We  must  never  forget  that  there  are  two 
things  we  are  trying  to  do;  in  the  first  place,  we  are  trying  to 
educate  society  by  educating  individuals;  we  are  trying  to  estab- 
lish new  ideals  of  life,  and  we  are  doing  it,  first,  by  education.  If 
the  time  is  to  come  when  the  woman  is  to  have  the  ballot,  then 
we  want  a  good  woman  to  vote,  who  will  vote  right.  Our  first 
effort  must  be — whether  we  are  thinking  of  the  voting  woman  or 
the  voting  man,  the  man  in  society  or  the  woman  in  society — to 
get  a  truly  trained  and  educated  man  or  woman  who  has  the  true 
ideal  of  life.  Part  of  the  purpose  of  this  great  Conference  here 
is  to  push  on  this  work  of  educating  men  and  women  and  societj. 

But  there  is  another  end  which  must  not  be  lost  sight  of;  we 
have  got  to  do  something  practical.  You  cannot  get  work  done 
in  this  world,  anywhere  or  at  any  time,  except  by  resident  forces. 
Two  of  our  speakers  have  touched  on  this  line;  they  have  been 
showing  that  if  we  are  to  accomplish  very  much  we  have  to  hitch 
on  somewhere,  to  bring  force  to  bear.  We  must  accomplish  some- 
thing with  those  who  determine  the  destiny  of  nations.  That  idea 
has  l)een  very  well  brought  out  by  S.  Edgar  Nicholson,  and  by 
William  L.  Pearson  and  others. 

Now,  would  it  not  be  a  pretty  good  way  to  do  that  to  have  ten 
or  fifteen  good,  strong,  true,  wise,  valiant  Quakers  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States?  What  is  the  trouble  with  that  idea,  and  why 
are  we  not  doing  something  in  that  direction? 

In  England  there  are  about  17,000  Friends.  Ten  of  them  are 
in  the.  House  of  Commons.  Nobody  who  knows  anything  about 
the  last  hundred  years  can  doubt  that  the  man  who  has  done  moit 


105 

to  make  the  ])rinciples  of  peace  mean  something  to  the  world  was 
Jolin  Bright.  lie  was  a  fighter;  he  didn't  believe  in  non-resistance, 
in  one  sense,  though  he  did  in  another.  He  believed  in  being 
aggressive,  to  make  his  principles  nnderstood;  he  stood  for  them 
and  lived  for  them  and  wrote  for  them,  and  he  went  out  of  office 
because  he  believed  in  them,  and  he  stayed  out  until  he  was  called 
back  as  a  victor. 

The  other  man  who  has  made  our  great  truth  most  known  and 
best  understood  and  most  of  a  force  in  American  society,  was  the 
poet,  John  Greenleaf  Whittier,  who  was  a  practical  politician,  as 
everybody  knows  who  has  read  his  life.  Probably  no  Friend  since 
the  time  of  William  Penn  has  been  more  of  a  practical  politician, 
determining  who  should  be  nominated  and  who  should  be  elected, 
than  Whittier;  and  probably  to  no  man  was  the  election  of  Senator 
Sumner,  of  Massachusetts,  more  directly  due  than  to  the  influence 
and  power  and  practical  work  of  this  Quaker  poet.  He  carried  his 
idea  not  only  into  his  poetry,  in  almost  every  line  of  which  it 
breathes;  but  also  into  the  caucus,  and  into  the  town  house. 

I  want  to  say,  without  taking  up  further  time,  that  whatever 
we  think  about  getting  women  into  the  right  places  as  a  remote 
possibility,  it  is  a  matter  of  immediate  concern  that  we  get  the 
right  men  into  the  right  places;  and  there  is  no  reason  why,  in  the 
next  fifteen  years,  we  should  not  have  six  Senators  and  fifteen  Rep- 
resentatives at  Washington;  and  I  hope  w^e  shall  go  to  work,  not 
to  wire-pull  and  to  pack  conferences,  or  anything  of  that  sort,  but 
by  the  proper  methods  to  get  the  right  men  where  they  can  work 
out  our  great  ideals  of  life,  and  make  the  principles  of  peace  and 
righteousness  prevail  because  they  become,  so  to  speak,  resident 
forces. 

Elizabeth  Lloyd:  The  thought  that  I  have  is  somewhat  in 
line  with  that  dropped  by  the  last  speaker.  It  was  suggested  in  the 
paper  last  evening  that  we,  although  peace  people,  believe  in  force. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  what  we  need  to  do  is  to  substitute, 
,  gradually,  but  as  rapidly  as  possible,  moral  force  for  physical  force 
in  all  human  relations.  The  time  has  hardly  come  when  any  of 
us,  perhaps,  would  be  walling  to  do  without  policemen  entirely,  or 
without  jails;  but  in  our  best  prisons  to-day  the  purpose  is  to  re- 
form men  rather  than  to  punish  them. 

We  all  know  how  great  is  the  moral  force  of  some  people.  A 
group  of  men  may  be  swearing  and  telling  obscene  stories,  and  one 
pure  woman  coming  into  their  midst  will  cause  all  this  to  stop, 
not  by  any  physical  power,  but  by  the  righteousness  that  is  within 
her.  Now,  in  home,  in  school,  in  the  community,  everywhere,  let 
our  influence  go  toward  the  substitution  of  moral  force  for  jihysical 
forces.  Leave  physical  force  for  the  adapting  of  the  material  uni- 
verse to  the  use  of  man;  use  moral  force  in  our  relations  one  with 


106 

another,  and  the  highest  kind  of  moral  force  is  that  which  is  the 
result  of  development.  It  is  true  of  organisms,  as  of  individ- 
uals, "  that  the  first  of  our  duties  to  God  and  ourselves  is  to  grow." 

Catheeine  M.  Shipley:  Just  one  sentiment  I  have  for  the 
Conference: 

"  One  who  never  turned  his  back, 
But  marched  breast  forward; 
Who  never  dreamt  the  right 
E'er  worsted — wrong  would  triumph; 
Who  held,  we  fall  to  rise. 
And  sleep  to  wake." 

Joseph  Elkinton:  I  would  like  to  suggest  that  a  message  be 
sent  to  President  Eoosevelt,  expressive  of  the  interest  and  sympathy 
of  this  Conference  with  him  in  his  present  responsibilities,  with 
encouragement  to  him  to  promote  as  far  as  may  be  in  his  power 
the  attainment  of  peace  through  the  influence  of  our  national  gov- 
ernment. 

The  Chairman:  In  accordance  with  the  rules  adopted,  that 
recommendation  will  be  given  to  the  Business  Committee  for  con- 
sideration. 

Edwin  McGrew:  I  came  as  a  learner  to  this  Convention;  but 
I  cannot  allow  this  opportunity  to  pass  without  expressing  my 
hearty  appreciation  of  the  messages  of  this  morning.  The  ques- 
tions discussed  in  the  two  papers  bearing  on  the  subject  of  educa- 
tion of  children  become  old  to  us,  and  thus  lose  much  of  their 
urgency.  Someone  has  said,  "  Thoughts  become  deeds,  and  may 
become  crime  "  ;  and  it  is  such  outcomes  as  these  that  we  are  to 
guard  against,  as  has  been  suggested  in  the  papers  and  in  the 
various  remarks  that  have  been  made. 

With  reference  to  the  practical  application  of  our  peace  prin- 
ciples, I  feel  most  deeply  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  what  has 
been  uttered.  Our  peace  work  must  be  of  such  aggressive  and 
powerful  nature  that  it  will  be  felt  on  all  possible  lines.  We 
must  search  about  to  find  opportunities  for  the  expression  of  our 
sentiment.  However  impractical  the  suggestion  may  seem,  I  cer- 
tainly am  ready  to  help  as  far  as  possible  in  the  West  toward  the 
election  of  any  member  to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives.  I  am 
glad  of  this  suggestion,  and  hope  it  may  be  worked  out  in  the  most 
direct  way. 

John  Chawnee:  A  short  time  ago  I  remarked  to  a  member 
of  the  Society  of  Friends  in  high  standing  in  England,  that  it  was 
my  conviction  that  but  for  the  pressure  of  public  sentiment  and 
the  newspapers  upon  President  McKinley,  he  would  have  solved 


107 

the  Cuban  question  without  war.  I  was  astonished  when  he  re- 
marked, "  I  prayed  that  America  might  go  to  war  with  Spain,  and 
when  the  report  of  the  destruction  of  the  Maine  came  I  rejoiced." 
That  man  is  one  who  is  anxious  to  see  the  condition  of  the  world 
improved ;  who  is  especially  interested  in  the  condition  of  criminals 
everywhere.  The  reason  he  felt  as  he  did,  so  he  said,  was  because 
he  believed  it  was  impossible  ever  to  get  a  better  condition  of  affairs 
under  Spanish  rule,  and  that  the  Spanish  rule  could  never  be 
broken  in  Cuba  without  war.  In  other  words,  he  was  of  the 
opinion  that  it  is  necessary  to  do  evil  sometimes  that  good  may  be 
accomplished.  Certainly  I  do  not  agree  with  the  opinion  he  ex- 
pressed; but  it  shows  us  that  there  is  a  necessity  still  of  present- 
ing the  sentimental  side  of  this  question,  to  say  nothing  against 
what  has  already  been  expressed  on  the  practical  side. 

In  conversation  with  another  person,  a  Non-Conformist  minister 
in  England,  I  was  surprised  to  hear  the  sentiment  expressed  in  sub- 
stance that  the  war  with  the  Boers  was  a  necessity;  that  they  had 
oppressed  the  native  races  around  them;  that  they  had  been  pre- 
paring for  this  contest  for  years,  and  that  it  was  unavoidable.  I 
was  surprised  to  find  that  there  are  many  Friends  who  lean  strongly 
toward  that  sentiment  and  who,  if  they  do  not  openly  express  it, 
apologize  for  the  war.  So  there  is  necessity  even  among  the 
Friends  of  teaching  the  principles  of  peace  anew. 

In  regard  to  the  fact  that  workingmen  will  ultimately  have 
great  influence  in  the  solution  of  the  peace  question,  I  wish  to  al- 
lude, in  a  sentence  or  two,  to  some  observations  that  I  recently 
heard  made  by  two  gentlemen.  One  of  them  was  sometime  ago 
in  the  Transvaal  as  a  mining  engineer,  I  think;  and  the  other  a 
miner  recently  returned  from  the  Transvaal.  The  war  with  the 
Boers,  it  is  claimed,  was  undertaken  for  the  good  of  the  English 
inhabitants  in  their  territory.  What  is  their  condition  now?  Be- 
fore the  war  miners  received  $5.00  a  day.  What  do  they  receive 
now?  A  dollar  and  a  half  a  day.  What  goes  with  the  balance? 
It  is  supposed  to  go,  though  the  miners  have  no  means  of  knowing 
that  it  does  absolutely  go,  to  the  government  to  support  it  in  the 
war.  Now,  if  the  war  was  undertaken  in  the  interests  of  the  Eng- 
lish subjects,  they  are  beginning  to  feel — at  least  the  English  labor- 
ers in  Africa  are  beginning  to  feel — that  they  have  to  bear  the 
burden  of  it;  and  in  tlie  future  we  may  suppose  that  they  will  not 
be  anxious  to  see  another  war. 

JoHK  B.  Gaerett:  Just  a  few  words,  to  allude  to  some  re- 
marks that  have  been  made  during  the  past  hour.  In  the  first 
place,  with  regard  to  the  Friend  in  England  who  had  prayed  that 
America  might  engage  in  war  with  Spain,  I  thought  it  might  have 
been  a  pertinent  question  whether  he  had  wrestled  in  prayer  to  God 
on  behalf  of  Spain  that  she  might  ameliorate  her  treatment  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Cuba.     When  people  talk  of  praying  that  war  may 


108 

be  engaged  in,  they  would  better,  I  think,  look  back  at  their  own 
hearts  and  see  whether  their  share  in  the  amelioration  of  the  suf- 
fering of  mankind  by  means  within  their  power  in  their  own  com- 
munity has  been  performed. 

I  listened  with  great  interest,  as  evidently  the  whole  company 
did,  to  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Rufus  M.  Jones  with  regard  to  the 
representation  of  Friends  in  the  legislation  of  the  land.  I  want 
the  editors  of  the  Society  journals  to  take  the  matter  to  heart,  for 
they,  above  all  others,  can  make  the  idea  go.  But  there  are  prac- 
tical difficulties,  as  every  one  of  us  who  is  interested  in  this  subject 
knows,  connected  with  our  engaging  in  the  work  of  the  national 
Congress,  or  even  of  our  State  Legislatures,  and  I  want  to  call  at- 
tention to  some  of  these.  There  are  functions  of  the  national  Leg- 
islature that  no  one  of  us  could  consistently  perform.  While  I 
agree  most  heartily  that  it  is  desirable  that  there  should  be  an 
influence  of  this  sort  in  the  national  Congress,  I  trust  that  the  man 
who  comes  forward  as  a  candidate  for  that  office  will  be  very  sure 
of  his  ground,  and  be  determined  in  advance  that  he  will  refrain 
from  those  portions  of  the  duties  which  attach  to  that  office  or 
those  offices  which  he  cannot  do  conscientiously  before  his  Master. 

Attention  has  been  called  to  the  prominence  of  Friends  in  Great 
Britain  in  political  life.  We  all  are  aware,  no  doubt,  that  the  pro- 
portion of  Friends  who  have  served  in  the  Parliament  of  Great 
Britain,  as  compared  with  other  religious  denominations,  has  been 
and  is  very  large,  and  that  the  proportionate  influence  of  Friends 
in  Great  Britain  over  the  national  legislation  is  far  greater  than  is 
the  case  in  our  own.  There  is  one  feature  of  their  political  system 
that  contributes  to  it  very  largely;  and  that  is,  that  any  one  who  is 
competent  tositin  the  British  Parliament  mayrepresent  anyconstit- 
uency  in  tTie  whole  kingdom.  He  does  not  necessarily  reside  in  the 
district  which  he  represents;  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  mem- 
bers of  Parliament  do  not  reside  in  the  districts  which  they  repre- 
sent. Moreover, the  constituencies  in  Great  Britain  vary  a  great  deal; 
some  of  them  are  very  small,  some  of  them  practically  within  the 
giving  of  a  single  individual.  There  are  men  who  wish  to  be  rep- 
resented in  the  Parliament  by  their  own  personal  friends;  and  it 
is  thus  comparatively  easy  for  one  who  represents  a  great  moral 
idea  to  find  that  he  has  a  constituency  somewhere  in  the  country. 
He  can  find  a  constituency  which  is  ready  to  send  him  to  Parlia- 
ment that  that  very  idea  may  find  its  fullest  expression  before  the 
British  people.  No  such  thing  is  possible  in  the  United  States. 
In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  with  its  thirty  Representatives,  if 
a  man  moves  from  one  side  of  the  street  to  the  other,  out  of  the 
district  which  he  has  represented  into  another,  he  can  no  longer 
represent  what  he  had  represented  before.  The  absurdity  of  it 
is  apparent  to  us  all.  But  let  us  go  on  and  work  as  we  may,  and  let 
us  take  to  heart  the  example  of  the  poet  Whittier,  who  did  work 
with  a  clean  hand  and  heart,  and  contributed  marvelously  to  the 


109 

creation  of  public  sentiment,  not  only  immediately  around  him,  but 
throughout  the  country  at  large. 

I  am  glad  that  what  was  said  by  the  president  of  Uryn  Mawr 
College  drew  from  our  friend  Mary  Woody  a  reference  to  the  teach- 
ing of  our  educational  institutions  generally  on  the  subject  of 
peace.  There  is  one  thought  1  want  to  present  to  us  for  our  comfort 
and  hope;  and  that  is,  that  the  heads  of  the  educational  institu- 
tions of  Friends  in  America,  from  Maine  to  California,  are  in  sym- 
pathy with  this  Conference  and  its  work;  and  we  need  no  better 
assurance  than  we  have  had  in  this  very  session  to-day,  and  in  the 
other  exercises  from  first  to  last,  that  the  leading  educational  men 
and  women  of  the  Society  of  Friends  in  America  are,  as  has  been 
recognized  by  the  Committee  on  Program,  of  all  others  those  who 
have  made  this  sul)ject  a  study  and  are  fitted  and  ready  to  educate 
our  young  people  aright  in  regard  to  it.  Let  us  be  assured  bj  rea- 
son of  this  fact,  that  there  is  hope  of  the  right  education  in  peace 
principles  not  only  of  our  own  young  people,  but  also  of  the  large 
percentage  of  the  students  of  Bryn  Mawr  College  and  of  our  other 
institutions  who  have  not  had  the  advantage  of  a  Quaker  training 
in  their  youth. 

The  Chairman:  I  want  to  say  that  if  the  students  of  Bryn 
Mawr  College  are  somewhat  warlike,  I  think  they  are  the  least  war- 
like of  any  body  of  417  young  women  that  can  be  found.  I  only 
meant  to  bring  out  that  the  young  people  of  the  country  are  not 
rightly  and  thoroughly  educated  as  they  should  be  on  the  peace 
question. 

After  announcements,  the  Chairman  declared  the  Conference 
adjourned  till  3.30  p.m. 


ytftb  Session, 


Sixth-day  Afternoon,  Twelfth  Month  13th. 

The  Conference  re-assembled  at  3.30  p.m.  The  session  was  pre- 
sided over  by  William  W.  Birdsall,  president  of  Swarthmore  Col- 
lege. 

After  a  few  moments  of  silent  waiting  upon  God,  the  Chairman 
said: 

The  Chairman:  I  find  upon  the  program  an  item,  "  Eemarks 
by  the  Chairman."  My  loyalty  to  the  Committee  on  Program  will 
not  permit  me  to  pass  by  that  item  unnoticed.  And  yet  my  loyalty 
to  those  who  have  presented  and  who  will  present  definitely-pre- 
pared discourses  will  not  allow  me  to  forget  that  the  ground  of 
any  remarks  I  may  make  is  likely  to  have  been  more  forcibly  cov- 
ered in  some  paper  which  has  been  read,  or  which  will  be  read. 
My  consolation  is  that  if  these  be  vital  truths,  as  we  believe  them 
to  be,  they  cannot  be  too  often  rehearsed  in  our  ears. 

The  progress  of  peace,  like  that  of  every  other  great  movement 
in  the  world,  partakes  of  the  nature  of  evolution.  Its  real  advance 
is  to  be  measured  not  by  comparing  to-day  with  yesterday,  but  by 
comparing  century  with  century,  and  age  with  age.  When  we 
make  such  comparison,  it  is  impossible  for  us  not  to  be  joyful,  not 
to  be  hopeful  and  courageous  for  the  future. 

In  the  present,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  are  three  great  causes 
making  for  a  hopeful  forward  look.  It  may  be  that  many  of  you 
will  disagree  with  me  as  to  one  of  these  causes.  However  that  may 
be,  I  firmly  believe  that  the  nature  of  modern  warfare  and  the  prep- 
arations for  it  constitute  one  of  the  causes  which  make  it  practically 
impossible  for  great  nations  to  go  to  war  one  with  another  hereaf- 
ter. Other  lessons  have  doubtless  been  taught  by  the  war  in  South 
Africa;  but  certainly  this  lesson  has  also  been  taught,  that  the  com- 
pany of  men  which  goes  up  against  a  city  to  take  it,  if  that  city  be 
fortified  and  defended  upon  modern  lines,  has  an  almost  impossi- 
ble task.  The  expenditure  of  men  and  of  means  in  the  undertak- 
ing of  war  now  by  any  one  of  the  great  nations  of  the  world  against 
any  other  one  of  them  will  be  such  as  to  appall  any  ministry  and 
necessarily  give  pause  to  any  government.  War,  therefore,  between 
the  leading  nations  of  the  world,  I  confidently  expect,  is  now  a 
thing  really  of  the  past. 

The  second  of  the  three  great  causes  which  I  have  in  mind  has 
already  been  presented  to  you;  it  is  the  present  imity  of  the  world, 
which  has  come  about  through  other  forces  than  those  of  the  spirit. 


Ill 

forces  which  are  largely  material,  or  economic,  hut  which  are  vital 
and  of  the  greatest  possible  potency  in  moulding  the  character  of 
the  time  and  the  trend  of  men's  minds.  We  depend  for  the  fur- 
nishing of  our  breakfast  tables  and  of  our  clothing  upon  the  pro- 
ducers and  the  merchants  of  every  corner  of  the  world;  we  are 
connected  in  thought  and  in  feeling,  as  no  generation  of  men  ever 
has  been  before,  with  all  the  peoples  of  the  world.  The  people 
with  whom  we  talk  in  the  morning  through  the  medium  of  the 
telegraph  and  the  newspaper;  the  people  with  whom  we  make 
friends  in  the  short  weeks  of  a  summer  holiday;  the  people  with 
whose  institutions  and  whose  persons  we  have  become  familiar 
through  their  writings,  or  through  their  travelings,  or  through 
ours,  are  not  the  people  with  whom  we  shall  wish  readily  to  go  to 
war.  The  present  and  the  growing  unity  of  the  world  is  a  great 
force  in  the  promotion  of  the  world's  peace. 

I  have  put  last  that  which  is  truly  first,  namely,  the  progress, 
the  spread,  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  in  the  world  and  in  the  hearts 
of  men;  for  surely  the  spread  of  charitable  thought,  the  growth  of 
sympathy  of  man  with  man,  and  of  people  with  people,  is  of  his 
kingdom;  and  surely  men  now  do  love  peace  to  a  degree  and  in  a 
manner  which  has  never  before  been  true. 

And  here  I  come  to  what  seems  to  me  the  vital  consideration  of 
a  real  peace  conference,  namely,  the  growth,  the  spread,  of  the 
peaceable  spirit.  I  attended  not  so  long  since  a  conference  on 
arbitration,  and  a  prominent  feature  of  the  proceedings  was  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  number  of  arbitrations  that  had  occurred  between 
the  nations  of  the  world  in  the  decades  of  the  past  century.  It 
seemed  that  those  present  regarded  with  disfavor  some  decades  in 
which  the  number  of  arbitrations  had  been  less  than  in  the  previous 
decades.  They  seemed  to  think  that  the  progress  of  peace  in  the 
world  was  to  be  measured  by  the  number  of  quarrels  which  men 
had  had  to  settle  by  "  leaving  them  out "  to  other  people,  and  not 
by  the  absence  of  quarrels  themselves.  The  growth  of  peace,  my 
friends,  is  to  come  about  not  so  much  by  amicably  settling  our 
quarrels  as  by  not  quarrelling.  We  ought  to  be  called,  as  George 
Fox  called  the  Protector,  as  I  stated  last  evening,  to  that  voice  of 
God  in  the  heart  which  will  take  us  away  not  only  from  wars  and 
from  fightings,  but  from  the  occasions  of  wars  and  of  fightings. 

Before  calling  for  the  first  ]japer  of  the  afternoon,  I  am  pleased 
to  be  al)le  to  announce  a  more  complete  carrying  out  of  the  idea 
of  this  Conference  than  was  at  first  thought  practicable.  It  gives 
me  pleasure,  as  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  give  you  pleasure,  to  know 
that,  at  the  request  of  the  committee,  Ida  Whipple  Benham,  of 
the  Rogerine  Friends,  Mystic.  Conn.,  whose  poetic  work  is  well  and 
favorably  know  tbrf)ngh  some  of  our  leading  journals,  has  pre- 
pared a  poem,  which  will  be  read  to  us  by  Rufus  M.  Jones. 


113 
GENTLE    AND    MIGHTY. 

BY   IDA  WHIPPLE  BENHAM. 

The  Child  that  in  the  manger  lay, 
A  babe,  a  lamb,    yet  strong  to  bless, 

Dwells  in  the  contrite  heart  alway, 
And  proves  the  power  of  gentleness. 

"Joy  to  the  world,  the  Lord  has  come!  " 
"Glory  to  God,  to  men  goodwill!  " 

Now  hush  the  bugle  and  the  drum. 
And  bid  the  haughty  strife  be  still. 

What  lips  were  loudest  in  the  fray 

Of  wrathful  words,  what  hands  would  smite 

With  fist   or   sword,  be  still  to-day, 
And  learn  the  law  of  peace  and  right. 

Such  wisdom  as  from  self  proceeds, 
The  sapient  lore  of  worldly  lust, 

Forget,  with   all  those  ruthless  deeds 
That,  from  the  dust,  return  to  dust. 

Oh,  not  with  boastful  threat  and  blow 
Doth  man  achieve  his  true  estate, 

But  loving,  trusting,  toiling,  so 

God's  gentleness  doth  make  him  great. 

Ye  leaders  of  the  multitude, 

With  their  up- reaching  hands  in  /ours. 
Lead  to  the  one  eternal  Good, 

The  Love  that  ransomed,  heals,  endures. 

Yea,  all  ye  stewards  of  the  Lord, 
Make  haste  to  do  His  perfect  will; 

Obey  the  voice :   "  Put  up  the  sword  I  " 
Obey  the  voice :  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill !  " 

And  ye  who  stretch  your  limbs  at  ease. 
Forgetful  of  a  brother's  claim, — 

Down,  from  your  couches  to  your  knees! 
Thence  rise  to  work  in  Jesus'  name. 

White   is   the   harvest,   large  the   yield; 

Lift  up  your  eyes  and  see  the  glow 
Of  fair  wheat  shining  in  God's  field. 

The  call  is  sounding,  rise  and  go. 


The  Chairman:  We  shall  now  have  the  pleasure  of  listening 
to  a  paper  on  the  '"  Present  Encouragements  for  the  Friends  of 
Peace,"  by  Professor  Ellen  C.  Wright,  of  Wilmington  College, 
Ohio. 


113 

PRESENT   ENCOURAGEMENTS   FOR   THE   FRIENDS    OF 

PEACE. 

BY   TROFESSOR  ELLEN   C.   WRIGHT,  WILMINGTON^  OHIO. 

Edward  Everett  has  left  us  a  most  eloquent  description  of  the 
natural  dawn,  as  witnessed  hy  himself  in  an  early  morning  trip  from 
Providence  to  Boston.  With  the  pencil  of  an  artist  he  paints 
for  us  the  darkness  and  silence  of  the  midsummer's  night,  the  spec- 
tral lustre  of  the  stars,  the  position  and  appearance  of  the  planets 
and  constellations  as  the  journey  hegins.  Presently  there  is  a  timid 
approaching  of  twilight,  a  softening  of  the  intense  blue  of  the 
sky,  a  departing  of  the  smaller  stars,  and  a  shifting  of  heavenly 
scenery  by  unseen  hands  of  angels.  Then  follow,  in  order,  a  kind- 
ling of  the  east,  a  purple  streaking  of  the  sky,  an  inflowing  tide  of 
morning  light,  till  at  last,  "  the  everlasting  gates  of  the  morning  are 
thrown  wide  open,  and  the  lord  of  day  begins  his  state." 

The  figure  is  well  worn,  but  it  remains  so  striking  a  type  of  the 
beginning,  growth,  and  glorious  ending  of  all  great  reforms,  and 
especially  of  that  which  has  come  and  is  coming  to  encourage  the 
friends  of  universal  peace,  that  one  may  be  pardoned,  if  it  is  im- 
possible to  contemplate  one  without  a  reminder  of  the  other. 

The  darkness  and  horror  of  past  ages  in  their  setting  of  blood, 
the  advent  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  the  gradual  and,  for  a  time, 
slow  spread  of  his  teachings,  the  speedy  growth  of  the  same,  in 
the  past  half  century  of  rapid  transit,  and  the  surprising  and  almost 
overwhelming  evidences  that  all  nations  are  now  yielding  to  the  in- 
coming light  of  truth,  and  are  soon  to  accept  the  better  way,  form 
a  panorama  as  much  more  glorious  than  the  advent  of  day  as  the 
substance  is  greater  than  the  shadow. 

It  is  the  business  of  this  paper  to  bring  together  into  one  view 
some  of  the  signs  that  make  for  encouragement.  It  is  but  a  pleas- 
ant task  to  turn  our  thoughts  to  the  hopeful  outlook;  for  from 
every  side  loom  up  evidences  that  we  are  in  the  dawn  of  the  day 
that  is  to  usher  in  the  reign  of  universal  and  perpetual  peace. 

To  encourage  is  to  put  heart  into  the  w'eary  toiler  and  arm 
him  with  new  strength  for  continued  struggle.  Nothing  puts  heart 
into  the  worker  for  any  cause  as  does  evidence  of  growth  toward 
linal  success.  But  the  signs  of  encouragement  in  the  present  can 
be  understood  and  appreciated  only  Ijy  at  least  an  occasional  glance 
at  the  past  for  purposes  of  contrast. 

In  the  infancy  of  the  world  men  were  like  children,  who  in- 
tuitively strike  at  whatever  injures  them;  who  "use  the  fist  until 
they  are  of  age  to  use  the  brain."  The  fighting  instinct,  like  that 
of  hunting  and  fishing  was  developed,  too,  in  a  crude  condition  of 
mankind,  by  the  struggle  to  preserve  life.  But  these  elements  are 
now  eliminated.  The  world  has  reached  its  majority,  and  its  ex- 
perience has  changed  and  improved  its  attitude.     The  cruelty  once 


lU 

condoned  by  a  state  of  semi-development  is  no  longer  in  keeping 
v'ith  the  humane  and  fraternal  feeling  of  an  advanced  civilization. 

The  very  absurdity  produced  by  attempting  to  fit  old  military 
customs  of  a  decayed  period  upon  the  new  order  of  things  in  this 
young,  new  century,  constitutes,  in  itself,  a  source  of  encourage- 
ment; for  nations,  like  individuals,  can  tolerate  anything  better 
than  ridicule.  How  incongruous  it  appears  for  a  people  whose 
compassion  has  been  cultivated  till  it  builds  hospitals  for  dumb 
brutes,  and  puts  its  greatest  offenders  to  death  by  as  painless  a 
method  as  possible,  to  be  asked  to  listen  with  pleasure  to  a  para- 
graph like  this  from  a  citizen  of  a  Christian  nation: 

"  A  few  thousand  massacred  last  Good  Friday  filled  English- 
men with  joy  during  the  Holy  Easter  season,  and  whetted  our  ap- 
petite for  what  has  followed  on  a  larger  scale  at  Khartoum.  The 
reports  indicate  that  our  perfected  machinery  of  slaughter  have 
been  effective  in  mowing  down  some  10,000  or  12,000  men  who 
were  fighting  for  their  country,  and  in  wounding  a  still  larger  num- 
ber, who,  at  this  very  moment,  are  lingering  out  their  last  mo- 
ments in  indescribable  agony  in  holes  and  hiding  places  into  which 
they  have  crept  to  die.  Such,  sir,  are  the  glorious  doings  for  which 
bishops  are  thanking  God,  poets  are  writing  impassioned  sonnets, 
and  over  which  almost  all  our  able  leader  writers  in  the  press  are 
waxing  hysterical  with  delight." 

Can  anything  be  more  certainly  working  out  its  own  overthrow 
than  the  attempt  of  a  system  to  reconcile  for  a  moment  this  ming- 
ling of  the  spirit  of  thanksgiving  and  rejoicing  with  the  contem- 
plation of  deeds  that  shock  and  torture  every  nerve  and  fiber  of 
modern  humanity? 

The  system,  then,  in  the  light  of  the  twentieth  century,  is  self- 
destructive.  How  pitiful  is  the  attempt  to  humanize  anything  so 
brual  as  war?  But  nations  have  a  code  of  honor,  and  that  code 
says  you  must  no  longer  use  bullets  that  flatten  easily  in  the  hu- 
man body.  How  long  will  it  be  till  the  honor  of  nations  will  de- 
mand that  no  bullets  at  all  shall  be  used? 

Nations  are  coming  to  wince  under  charges  in  which  once  they 
gloried.  They  fear  to  be  called  brutal;  none  are  willing  to  ac- 
knowledge the  citizenship  of  Czolgosz.  America  knows  he  is  none 
of  hers.  Jews  are  indignant,  Russians  offended  and  Poles  put  on 
the  defensive  whenever  the  question  is  sprung.  Any  ambitious 
motives  for  modern  war  are  veiled  under  cover  of  protection  for  the 
natives  of  South  Africa  or  the  West  Indies,  or  pity  for  the  victims 
of  Spanish  cruelty. 

For  the  first  two  or  three  centuries  of  the  Chrisian  era  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  when  asked  to  take  up  carnal  weapons,  said,  "  We 
are  Christians  and  cannot  fight";  but  from  the  time  when  Con- 
stantine,  seeing  that  Christianity  was  becoming  popular  and  would 
strengthen  his  empire,  drove  his  soldiers  into  the  river  and  had 
them  baptized  by  battalions,  the  idea  of  necessity  prevailed  that 


115 

such  nominal  Christians  might  fight,  and  there  grew  up  the  notion 
of  holy  wars;  and  we  have  the  anomaly  of  the  Crusades  and  other 
wars  professedly  for  holy  purposes,  until  the  idea  became  almost 
universal  that  the  Christian's  duty  was  scarcely  done  till  he  had 
lifted  up  the  sword  in  defense  of  something  or  other. 

But  the  advent  of  that  gentle-spirited  Swarthmore  preacher 
who  said.  '*  I  am  in  love  with  all  men  and  cannot  fight  against  any," 
began  to  call  the  followers  of  Christ  back  to  the  purity  of  their  first 
principles,  and  to  George  Fox  and  his  followers  has  been  entrusted 
for  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  the  sacred  mission  of  interpreting 
correctly  to  a  fighting  world  the  real  teachings  of  the  Prince  of 
Peace. 

How  well  this  has  been  done  only  he  who  gave  them  the  mission 
may  know;  but  in  these  later  years  have  come  an  array  of  events 
that  fill  them  with  renewed  hope  and  encouragement. 

The  trend  of  human  thought  in  the  past  has  been  so  in  harmony 
with  the  idea  that  war  is  essential,  that  it  is  amazing  so  much  has 
been  accomplished  in  a  little  more  than  half  a  century.  Instead 
of  a  few  feeble  folk  standing  for  a  principle  under  fire  of  ridicule 
and  persecution,  now  every  nation  has  its  advocates  of  peace.  Men 
and  women  in  all  ranks  of  life  have  espoused  the  cause. 

The  Polish  publicist  who  has  written  so  learnedly  as  to  influence 
so  powerful  a  patron  as  Nicholas  II.  has  for  one  of  his  strongest 
arguments  against  war  that  it  is  now  out  of  date.  He  shows  that 
it  is  the  absence  of  militarism  as  known  in  the  old  world  that  gives 
the  United  States  her  commercial  supremacy.  This  is  turning  the 
eyes  of  other  nations  to  our  better  system.  The  statesmen  of  the 
day  are  busy  with  the  problem  of  devising  methods  that  shall  su- 
persede those  of  war. 

This  change  in  men's  minds  and  feelings  on  the  subject  of  peace 
and  war  is  a  permanent  one;  for  it  is  founded  upon  right  and  jus- 
tice, and  is  the  outgrowth  of  circumstances  attendant  upon  advanc- 
ing Christian  civilization.  Peace  is  becoming  the  demand  of  the 
age.  and  when  popular  opinion  protests  against  war,  its  doom  is 
sealed. 

Once  even  the  clergy  exalted  war  as  a  great  agent  of  progress, 
Davies,  "  a  devout  divine,"  urged  his  hearers  "  to  cherish  a  war 
spirit  as  derived  from  God,  as  a  sacred  heaven-born  fire."  Others 
have  declared  that  war  is  essential  to  the  life  of  a  nation;  that  it 
strengthens  it  morally,  mentally  and  physically. 

But  David  Starr  Jordan  shows  that  such  utterances  can  proceed 
only  from  the  grossly  ignorant.  He  points  out  what,  in  the  light 
of  the  age,  needs  no  demonstration,  that  the  warring  nation  is  the 
decaying  nation;  because  she  reverses  the  natural  law  of  develop- 
ment through  heredity.  She  sacrifices  her  able-bodied  to  the  dragon 
of  war.  She  exterminates  instead  of  conserves  her  best.  So  the 
warlike  nation  of  to-day  must  be  the  decadent  nation  of  to-morrow. 


116 

Such  leaching  as  this  from  educated  and  intelligent  men  forms 
one  of  the  strongest  sources  of  encouragement. 

Educators  are  teaching  the  young,  not  only  in  the  schools,  but 
from  the  platform  and  the  press,  that  there  is  a  grander  concep- 
tion of  patrotism  than  has  prevailed  in  the  past;  that  it  is  better 
to  live  for  one's  country  than  to  die  for  it;  that  it  is  nobler  to  set 
the  example  of  aood  citizenship  in  time  of  peace  than  to  win  laurels 
on  the  field  of  blood. 

The  histories  prepared  for  school  schildren,  and  even  for  their 
elders,  are  improvements  over  the  old,  for  they  do  not  dwell  so 
much  upon  revolting,  detailed  descriptions  of  battles.  The  model 
history  of  the  future  will  not  only  exalt  the  peaceful  exploits  of  in- 
dustry which  promote  true  wealth  and  human  happiness,  but  will 
teach  that  arbitration  is  able  to  settle  all  difficulties  between  na- 
tions as  well  as  between  communities  and  individuals. 

As  the  consequence  of  this  modern  teaching,  a  new  generation 
is  coming  up,  who  advocate  peace.  The  young  men  of  Europe  are 
weary  of  militarism  and  long  to  throw  off  the  yoke  it  imposes  upon 
them. 

That  world-wide  movement  among  the  young  which  is  inter- 
national, interdenominational  and  interracial,  the  United  Society 
of  Christian  Endeavor,  is  laboring  to  popularize  the  cause  of  inter- 
national arbitration.  It  presented  to  Congress  a  peace  memorial 
signed  by  thousands  of  names,  in  which  are  such  sentiments  as 
these:  "  We  wish  to  express  our  abhorrence  of  war,  and  our  solemn 
conviction  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  civilized  nation  to  do  all  in 
its  power  toward  making  war  impossible.  We  wish  to  record  our 
desire  for  a  speedy  establishment  of  an  international  tribunal  of 
arbitration." 

Woman  has  learned  that  she  has  an  important  part  in  the 
extermination  of  war.  When  the  western  woman  goes  for  the  first 
time  to  the  continent  of  Europe,  she  is  shocked  at  sight  of  multi- 
tudes of  women  toiling  at  the  manual  labor  of  husbands,  brothers, 
and  sons  who  are  giving  to  their  country  a  grudging  service  de- 
manded by  an  enslaving  military  system,  and  henceforth  she  feel* 
that  all  this  must  be  changed.  Women  everywhere  are  coming  to 
see  that  war  is  one  of  their  greatest  enemies,  robbing  them  by 
wholesale  of  the  dearest  treasures  of  life.  So  we  come  to  have 
such  great  organizations  as  the  "  Woman's  Universal  Peace  Alli- 
ance." and  a  department  of  Peace  in  both  the  National  and  the 
World's  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  that  powerful  or- 
ganization which  penetrates  the  remotest  corners  of  the  earth.  The 
International  Council  of  Women,  which  includes  all  women's  clubs 
of  America,  signed  a  petition  asking  for  a  permanent  court. 
What  has  woman  ever  undertaken  in  united  body  that  she  has  not 
in  time  accomplished? 

The  press,  through  the  agency  of  peace  advocates^  is  flooding 
the  world  with  innumerable  pages  of  literature.     The  few,  feeble 


117 

tracts  and  pamphlets  of  earlier  days  have  been  succeeded  by  ad- 
dresses, sermons,  prize  essays,  magazine  articles,  peace  periodicals 
and  books  in  abundance.  Prose,  poetry,  satire,  debate  and  the 
powerful  cartoon  have  all  been  summoned  to  contribute  to  the 
teaching  that  all  war  is  brutal,  and  may  be  done  away  with  by 
the  peaceable  method  of  arbitration.  If  you  fear  that  all  this  is  but 
dry  reading  and  neglected  by  the  multitude,  here  is  the  modem 
method  of  making  any  subject  acceptable  to  them. 

Fiction,  that  form  of  literature  which  the  masses  read,  is  prom- 
ising to  become  a  mighty  ally  in  reform  work.  Harriet  Beecher 
Stowe  is  credited  with  a  gigantic  blow  in  the  destruction  of  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery,  and  modern  novelists  are  undertaking  to  show 
the  hideousness  of  war,  and  to  put  into  attractive  form  sentiments 
averse  to  the  common  theory  that  war  is  ever  to  be  encouraged 
«r  even  tolerated, 

Commerce  in  these  later  times  has  so  bound  the  different  na- 
tions together  that  the  mere  rumor  of  war  in  one  is  able  to  disturb 
the  markets  of  the  others.  Shuttling  trains,  electric  wires,  steam- 
ships and  ocean  cables  combine  to  make  the  whole  world  next-door 
neighbors.  Men  who  deal  with  one  another  in  honorable  commer- 
cial relations  develop  friendships  and  fellow-feeling  that  shut  out 
all  desire  to  employ  against  each  other  rapid-fire  guns  or  maximite. 
It  is  maintained  by  some  who  have  given  the  subject  deep  thought 
that  the  ethical  principle  underlying  commerce  will  of  itself  finally 
suppress  war. 

It  is  a  most  hopeful  sign  that  the  laboring  classes,  upon  whom 
the  heavy  burden  of  war  falls,  are  becoming  more  and  more  op- 
posed to  it.  Workingmen  everywhere  are  developing  among  them- 
selves a  sentiment  favoring  peace  and  universal  alliance. 

The  study  of  social  and  political  economy,  which  has  become  a 
part  of  the  curriculum  of  almost  all  schools,  is  impressing  upon  all 
thoughtful  persons  how  enormously  costly  in  men  and  means 
is  any  system  of  war.  France  is  bewailing  her  numerical  condition 
as  indicated  by  the  proportionate  rate  of  increase  and  decrease  of 
her  population.  All  nations  point  with  pride  to  a  fat  census  roll, 
but  they  are  learning  that  war  is  the  greatest  depopulator.  The  fi- 
nancial cost  of  war  has  long  been  held  up  as  a  motive  of  prevention, 
but  the  cost  of  building,  arming  and  maintaining  modern  ships  of 
war,  of  manipulating  modern  equipments,  and  firing  and  exploding 
modern  murder  machines,  is  so  enormous  that  it  makes  the  past 
seem  like  child's  play.  And  all  this  does  not  take  into  account  that 
other  aw^ful  drain  upon  the  moral  and  spiritual  forces  of  the  world. 
The  past  few  decades  have  witnessed  a  series  of  peace  confer- 
ences and  congresses  increasing  in  frequency  and  prestige,  as  public 
interest  has  arisen.  At  first  these  assemblies  received  little  atten- 
tion, even  in  the  cities  where  they  were  held.  Now  magistrates  and 
city  officials,  in  robes  of  office,  come  out  to  meet  and  welcome  and 


118 

honor  the  lovers  and  advocates  of  peace.  A  president  holds  a  re- 
ception for  assembling  delegates  and  invites  them  to  his  palace. 

The  advance  steps  taken  by  the  nations  for  the  establishment  of 
a  permanent  tribunal,  though  depreciated  in  some  quarters,  are  a 
source  of  the  strongest  encouragement.  Never  was  a  birthday  more 
gloriously  celebrated  than  that  of  Nicholas  II.,  on  the  18th  of  May, 
in  1899,  which  saw  the  opening  of  what  General  Harrison  was 
pleased  to  call  "  one  of  the  greatest  assemblies  of  nations  which  the 
world  has  yet  seen.''  The  Hague  Conference  is  said  to  have  done 
more  for  the  world  than  a  multitude  of  battles.  Its  treaty  has  been 
called  the  Magna  Charta  of  international  law;  The  Hague  the  capi- 
tal of  the  world. 

This  "  High  Court  of  Nations "  and  of  Christendom  will  find 
something  to  do.  The  greater  nations  have  called  it  into  being, 
and  when  they  have  learned  to  use,  by  using,  its  beneficent  aid,  the 
smaller  ones  will  be  compelled  to  submit  their  differences  to  the 
same  tribunal. 

Encouragement  grows  out  of  the  very  evils  that  are  afflicting 
our  country.  The  frequent  strikes  resulting  from  the  different 
standpoints  of  capital  and  labor,  of  employer  and  employee,  are 
training  bodies  of  men  far  and  wide  in  the  use  of  peaceful  arbitra- 
tion, which  means  to  stop  and  think  about  it;  and  thus  transfers 
disputes  from  brute  force  to  the  realm  of  thought  and  reason.  How 
easy  and  natural  will  be  the  passing  to  questions  of  larger  content, 
and  engaging  a  greater  number  of  men. 

The  South  African  War  is  a  terrible  blot  on  the  fair  name  of 
Great  Britain,  but  it  is  teaching  her  best  citizens  a  lesson  that  will 
long  be  remembered.  Sir  Joseph  Pease,  member  of  the  British 
Parliament,  has  recently  said  that  in  the  more  than  thirty  years  of 
his  parliamentary  life  he  has  never  known,  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, so  much  opposition  to  war  as  now. 

Our  own  nation  has  learned  many  lessons  from  the  mistakes  of 
her  policy  in  recent  wars.  Those  mistakes  have  challenged  the 
study  and  thought  of  the  best  and  wisest  citizens,  and  summoned 
the  aid  of  the  ablest  statesmen  in  their  discussion. 

A  great  and  sudden  test  of  character  has  recently  come  to  our 
nation  in  the  manner  of  its  chief  magistrate's  death,  and  the  rank 
and  file  of  citizens  have  borne  it  with  a  spirit  that  shows  we  are 
growing  more  Christlike,  and  consequently  more  unwarlike. 

The  discouraged  worker  will  tell  us  that  our  hopes  are  Utopian; 
that  storm  clouds  are  gathering  everywhere;  that  all  nations  are 
in  an  inflammable  state  and  need  but  the  igniting  match  to  flash 
them  into  universal  war.  But  the  wars  and  rumors  of  wars  that 
are  left  are  only  the  shrieks  of  the  spirits  as  they  take  their  de- 
parture from  the  body  politic  of  nations.  All  difficulties  and  seem- 
ingly backward  movements  are  only  evidences  that  our  reform  is 
following  the  natural  trend  of  all  reforms.  The  apparent  retro- 
grade movements  are  but  surface  currents;  the  great  majestic  tide 


119 

is  toward  the  desired  end.  These  are  hut  a  few  of  the  manifold 
signs  of  encouragement. 

The  Temple  of  Janus  is  soon  to  be  closed  forever.  The  world 
cannot  creep  back  into  the  narrow  shell  whence  it  came.  When 
once  a  reform  so  gigantic  gets  a  start,  its  very  momentum  carries  it 
onward.  The  mightiest  contribution  that  has  ever  been  made  to 
civilization  is  the   idea  of  universal  peace. 

Is  this  a  namby-pamby  optimism  that  believes  all  things  are  go- 
ing to  come  out  right  whetlier  we  work  or  not?  No;  our  mission 
is  inherited  from  our  forefathers.  Their  spirit  cries  out  to  us, 
"Go  on!  go  on!  You  have  a  thousand  things  to  encourage  you 
where  we  had  one.  Let  not  our  toil  have  been  in  vain.  Make  u^e 
of  every  strategic  point;  guard  every  avenue  of  defeat;  keep  the  flag 
of  peace  floating." 

Eternal  vigilance  is  still  the  price  of  success,  and  a  meeting  like 
this  is  but  to  arm  ourselves  anew  with  weapons  for  our  peaceful 
warfare  for  peace. 

We  dare  not  stop.  We  are  like  builders  with  a  heavy  beam 
poised  above  our  heads,  ready  to  be  placed,  with  steady,  united 
hands,  into  its  sockets. 

The  greatest  of  all  sources  of  encouragement  is  that  the  silent 
and  invisible  forces  are  for  us.  The  stars  in  their  courses  are  fight- 
ing against  our  enemy  as  they  did  against  Sisera.  The  Lord  God 
Omnipotent  reigneth. 

The  Chairman:  The  next  paper  will  be  upon  the  subject  of 
"  Internationalism,"  by  Hannah  J.  Bailey,  Superintendent  of  the 
Peace  Department  of  the  World's  and  National  Woman's  Christian 
Temperance  Union. 

INTEENATIONALISM. 

BY  HANNAH  J.   BAILEY,  SUPERINTENDENT   OF  THE   PEACE 
DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  V^^ORLD'S  AND  NATIONAL  W.  C.  T.  U. 

The  world  is  gradually  moving  towards  internationalism.  Busi- 
ness naturally  takes  a  leading  place  in  the  movement.  One  part 
of  the  world  does  not  produce  what  another  part  does,  consequently 
trade  must  be  established  between  the  different  sections,  and  thus 
indirectly  are  they  brought  into  harmony,  for  it  is  to  the  advantage 
of  all  to  be  at  peace.  There  are  thousands  of  business  men  who 
are  selfishly  opposed  to  warfare,  inasmuch  as  it  greatly  interferes 
with  their  foreign  trade.  Some  think  that  for  the  sake  of  self- 
protection  duties  should  be  charged  upon  all  imports;  others  believe 
in  free  trade,  and  still  others  in  reciprocity.  The  question  arises: 
Which  of  these  methods  is  best  adapted  to  the  interests  of  inter- 
nationalism? And  this  question  is  answered  according  to  one's  own 
preference  and  advantage  financially. 


120 

Because  of  business  requirements,  an  International  Postal 
Union  has  been  established,  all  nations  which  have  Joined  it  agree- 
ing to  send  their  first-class  mail  to  all  others  in  the  union  for  five 
cents  per  half  ounce.  A  universal  postage  stamp  is  now  needed. 
It  is  embarrassing  for  those  who  wish  to  have  postal  communica- 
tions with  people  in  foreign  lands  to  have  no  practical  means  of  en- 
closing return  postage.  This  is  especially  so  in  the  case  of  authors 
who  want  to  submit  manuscript  to  the  inspection  of  editors  of  for- 
eign publications.  When  we  realize  that  the  postage  stamp  itself 
is  a  thing  comparatively  recent,  we  can  hope  that  one  that  is  inter- 
national may  materialize  in  the  near  future. 

This  suggests  the  thought  that  there  may  be  also  an  interna- 
tional system  of  money,  and  no  doubt  it  will  be  the  decimal  system 
which  originated  among  the  savages,  who  did  their  counting  upon 
their  fingers.  This  is  the  system  now  in  use,  as  we  all  know,  in  the 
United  States  and  Canada. 

This  brings  us  to  the  thought  of  finances  considered  interna- 
tionally, and  what  a  great  factor  is  this.  The  Eothschilds  and  the 
house  of  the  Barings  have  long  been  known,  and  exerted  a  finan- 
cial infiuence  in  all  the  civilized  world.  When,  a  few  years  ago, 
the  balance  hung  between  a  gold  and  a  silver  standard  in  the 
United  States,  trade  was  not  only  much  paralyzed  in  this  country, 
but  the  whole  world  waited  breathlessly  for  the  result,  knowing 
how  much  was  at  stake;  and  none  but  those  who  understand  the 
financial  market  can  comprehend  the  terrible  stagnation  that  is 
brought  about  by  warfare.  The  very  rumor  of  a  war  in  this  coun- 
try will  cause  no  small  stir  in  Wall  Street,  New  York,  and  in  all 
the  great  money  centers  of  the  world. 

Modern  inventions  have  done  much  towards  making  the  world 
one  family.  The  steamships  and  the  locomotives  have  gone  to  the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  earth.  The  steam  cars  not  only  traverse 
the  desert,  but  have  invaded  the  sacred  soil  of  Palestine  and  have 
made  their  way  across  Siberia;  and  now  great  international  railroad 
systems  are  being  talked  of.  The  telephone,  the  telegraph  and  the 
electric  light  are  now  found  not  only  on  all  of  the  continents,  .but 
likewise  in  the  islands  of  the  sea. 

Dress  has  become  largely  international,  as  a  glance  at  the  pic- 
tures of  the  lady  members  of  the  homes  of  royalty  of  the  world  will 
show.  At  a  world's  fair  the  different  nationalities  of  the  most 
notable  visitors  can  hardly  be  distinguished  by  their  dress  alone. 
France  sets  the  fashion  and  the  world  follows.  Such  a  state  of 
affairs  has  advantage  from  an  economic  standpoint,  but  it  is  de- 
stroying, in  a  measure,  race  individuality.  The  missionaries  of 
Japan  tried  to  induce  the  native  women  to  keep  to  the  native  dress 
because  it  was  so  much  more  artistic  in  style  than  that  which  was 
being  donned  by  them  as  obtained  from  the  French  fashions. 

We  often  wish  that  internationalism  would  bring  into  use  one 
language.     There  never  has  been  a  universal  language  since  Tower 


of  Babel  times.  Latin  was  for  years  the  language  of  the  courts. 
The  English  language  is  fast  spreading  over  the  world.  The  sim- 
plicity of  its  structure  makes  it  well  adapted  to  any  people.  But 
will  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  be  the  one  great  final  race  upon  the 
earth?  Some  do  not  believe  this,  and  they  declare  that  England 
will  have  to  fall  as  have  other  nations,  for  God  has  not  forgotten  the 
terrible  opium  trade  she  has  imposed  upon  China,  and  the  more 
terrible  wars  for  which  she  is  responsible.  We  deplore  that,  though 
the  United  States  has  been  guilty  of  less,  yet,  as  a  nation,  her 
hands  have  not  been  free  from  the  blood  of  others.  The  American 
band  was  playing  "  There'll  be  a  hot  time  in  the  old  town  to-night " 
while  hundreds  of  human  beings  were  sinking  to  their  eternal  des- 
tiny, and  the  cause  of  their  death  was  the  fact  that  they  belonged  to 
Cervcra's  fleet.  There  would  be  nothing  but  the  bitterest  disdain 
for  a  man  who  would,  while  singing  a  street  song,  deliberately  push 
a  man  into  the  sea;  but  what  is  the  difference?  Ah,  friends,  is 
such  a  system  of  settling  international  difficulties  civilization?  Is 
it  Christian? 

International  fairs — the  Columbian  Exposition,  for  example — 
do  and  have  done  much  towards  bringing  the  nations  into  closer 
harmony. 

But  most  of  all  can  this  desirable  result  be  brought  about  by 
utiliziiig  the  International  Court  of  Arbitration.  The  Peace  Con- 
gress at  The  Hague  has  been  one  of  the  great  blessings  that  have 
come  to  the  world.  The  international  peace  conferences  that  have 
been  held  annually  by  peace  workers  for  years  have,  doubtless,  ex- 
erted a  great  influence  in  bringing  this  about. 

It  is  an  encouraging  sign  of  the  time  that  some  of  the  colleges 
have  professorships  of  international  law,  and  one  can  advance  the 
cause  of  civilization  by  furnishing  funds  to  institute  such  a  chair 
where  there  is  none.  Law  is  the  opposite  of  war,  as  order  is  of 
chaos.  Some  seem  to  have  the  idea  that  those  who  would  dispel 
militarism  from  the  earth  would  allow  wrongs  to  go  unrighted. 
Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  truth.  All  wrongs  should  be 
righted  as  far  as  humanity  can  right  them,  but  the  advocates  of 
peace  teach  that  they  should  be  adjusted  in  a  sensible  manner — 
by  arbitration,  and  not  in  the  haphazard  manner  of  warfare,  where 
chance  plays  so  important  a  part  and  the  suffering  and  sin  are 
simply  indescribable. 

We  get  some  idea  of  the  darkness  of  present  internationalism 
from  the  late  Chinese  trouble,  where  the  powers  of  good  and  evil 
were  contending  for  the  mastery.  From  a  human  standpoint, 
China  was  opposed  to  the  entire  civilized  world,  and  she  then 
learned  the  meaning  of  internationalism.  The  Chinese  Minister  at 
Washington  explained  it  well.  He  said  that  if  obliged  to  leave  the 
United  States,  he  did  not  know  where  to  go.  He  did  not  care  to 
return  to  China,  and  there  was  no  foreign  country  open  to  him, 


122 

for  China  was  at  war  with  all  the  world.  How  happy,  indeed,  is 
"  that  nation  whose  God  is  the  Lord,"  the  Prince  of  Peace. 

Hegel,  the  great  philosopher,  has  shown  very  plainly  that  no 
man  lives  for  himself  alone;  that  there  is  an  artificial  life,  as  it  were, 
for  which  the  child  must  he  disciplined;  hence  arises  the  need  of 
culture  and  education,  these  to  adapt  the  child  to  the  institutions 
which  await  it — the  home,  the  church  and  the  state.  We  might 
go  further  and  say  that  no  nation  exists  for  itself  alone,  hut  each 
exists  for  all  others,  and  the  sooner  the  world  learns  that  the  high- 
est good  of  each  nation  is  the  highest  good  of  all  nations,  the  better 
it  will  be  for  all.  When  one  nation  suffers  because  of  warfare,  all 
nations  suffer  indirectly.  The  trail  of  the  serpent  is  upon  all; 
hence,  from  the  standpoint  of  political  economy,  if  for  no  other  rea- 
son, militarism  should  be  universally  denounced. 

It  would  greatly  promote  a  true  internationalism  if  all  the  in- 
fluence for  militarism  and  the  so-called  glory  of  war  should  be 
obliterated  from  the  school  books  of  the  nations.  If  school  his- 
tories should  give  accounts  of  the  achievements  of  governments, 
nations  and  of  prominent  individuals,  of  scientists,  politicians,  edu- 
cators and  philanthropists  in  times  of  peace,  or  independent  of  war- 
fare, omitting  the  mention  of  war,  except  as  an  event,  the  cruel 
practice  of  settling  international  diflficulties  by  force  of  arms  would 
soon  be  relegated  to  the  past  and  men  would  "  learn  war  no  more." 
If  the  honor  and  glory  now  bestowed  upon  warriors  who  have  done 
the  most  harm  to  the  losing  side  were  given  to  worthy  poets  and 
other  authors,  to  inventors,  discoverers,  leaders  in  righteous  causes, 
in  moral  reforms  and  in  genuine  religious  teaching  and  the  promul- 
gation of  the  gospel  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  there  soon  would  be 
"  no  need  of  arsenals  and  forts."  The  song  of  the  angels  on  the 
first  Christmas  morning  would  be  the  victory  song  of  the  world,  and 
all  nations  would  join  in  the  march  of  Peace. 

Christ  prayed  that  his  disciples  might  all  be  one.  Some  believe 
that  this  means  there  must  be  but  one  denomination,  and  that  the 
entire  Christian  world  will  come  to  be  one  religious  organization. 
It  is  probably  immaterial  what  our  individual  opinions  may  be 
upon  non-essential  points,  but  it  is  quite  important  that  we  be 
agreed  upon  the  great  underlying  facts  and  elements  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  in  these  days  about  universal  brotherhood. 
It  is  true  that  God  is  creator  of  us  all  and  that  "  one  touch  of  na- 
ture makes  the  whole  world  kin,"  yet  does  not  the  Bible  everywhere 
distinguish  between  the  children  of  God  and  the  children  of  the 
evil  one,  between  the  children  of  light  and  the  children  of  dark- 
ness? Not  until  the  heathen  and  the  unregenerate  in  Christian 
lands  are  brought  to  Christ  will  the  world  be  one  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Let  us  pray  earnestly  for  that  time. 

The  kingdom  of  peace  will  surely  some  time  be  established  on 
earth.     What  the  prophet  has  foretold  must  surely  come  to  pass: 


123 

"  And  lie  shall  judge  among  the  nations  and  shall  rebuke  many 
people;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plowshares  and  their 
spears  into  pruning  hooks;  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against 
nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more." 

When  the  World's  Fair  was  being  held  in  Chicago  there  was  one 
tent  occupied  by  South  Sea  Islanders  exhibiting  their  native  wares. 
A  large  placard  was  posted  near  the  entrance  of  the  tent  upon 
which  were  printed  words  reading  like  this:  "'  Visitors  are  requested 
not  to  ask  these  people  about  the  now-abandoned  practice  of  can- 
nibalism among  their  ancestors,  as  they  do  not  like  to  hear  it  spoken 
of."  There  will  be  a  time  in  the  future  when  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race  will  be  ashamed  to  have  the  present  practice  of  warfare  al- 
luded to.  It  is  humiliating  now-,  that  the  twentieth  century  opens 
with  "  wars  and  rumors  of  war."  May  God  grant  that  wlien  an- 
other century  dawns  upon  the  world  its  inhabitants  will  have  for- 
gotten the  barbarism  of  warfare  and  will  only  know  it  as  a  matter 
of  history  that  had  to  be  recorded  to  be  complete,  although  it  must 
be  so  to  the  shame  of  our  children's  grandchildren. 

An  important  factor  in  promoting  true  internationalism  is  the 
recent  practice  of  holding  international  conventions  in  the  inter- 
ests of  religion  and  of  philanthropy  in  different  parts  of  the  world. 
The  Christian  Endeavorers,  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association, 
the  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  the  Peace  Societies  of 
the  world  and  the  women's  international  organizations  are  on  the 
list  of  those  who  have  thus  promoted  international  co-operation  and 
the  cause  of  peace. 

The  president  of  "  The  Women's  Universal  Alliance  for  Peace," 
the  Princess  Wiszniewska,  said  at  a  banquet  of  peace  in  Paris,  that 
more  than  tw^o  millions  of  women  had  joined  the  movement  of 
"  war  against  war."  The  president  of  the  International  Council 
of  Women.  May  Wright  Sewall,  of  Indiana,  is  an  earnest  advocate 
of  peace,  and  the  topic  is  always  given  a  very  prominent  place  on 
the  program  for  all  public  meetings  of  this  organization  of  organiza- 
tions of  both  a  national  and  international  character. 

The  World's  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  with  a 
membership  of  more  than  three  hundred  thousand,  has  a  Depart- 
ment of  Peace  and  Arbitration,  which  has  been  organized  in  eleven 
different  countries  and  in  twenty-nine  States  in  our  nation.  Its 
literature  and  influence  have  been  extended  into  every  civilized  na- 
tion in  the  world.  It  has  found  many  warm  advocates  of  this 
beautiful  cause  among  missionaries,  and  it  has  been  chiefly  through 
their  helpful  efforts  that  the  initial  steps  have  been  taken  in  intro- 
ducing and  organizing  this  department  work.  The  work  has  been 
done  chiefly  by  the  methods  of  lectures,  sermons,  Bible  readings, 
utilizing  the  public  press,  organizing  peace  bands  and  introducing 
peace  teaching  in  Loyal  Temperance  Legions  and  Bible  Schools. 
Also  peace  principles  have  been  promulgated  by  much  personal 
work  done  by  national,  State,  county  and  local  superintendents  and 


124 

their  helpers.  Telling  resolutions  have  been  introduced  by  them 
into  many  conferences  and  conventions  of  various  religious  and 
philanthropic  organizations.  Petitions,  memorials  and  protests  in 
the  interests  of  peace  have  been  circulated,  and  letters  bearing  re- 
quests have  been  sent  to  public  officials.  Influence  has  been  ex- 
erted against  military  teaching  in  public  schools  and  Bible  schools; 
also  against  prize-fighting,  lynching,  capital  punishment  and  every 
other  phase  of  man's  cruelty  to  man.  So  much  of  the  work  done 
under  the  auspices  of  the  W.  C.  T.  U.  is  educational  that  the  results 
of  its  best  efforts  on  the  line  of  peace  as  well  as  some  others  cannot 
be  known  until  some  years  have  passed,  and  perhaps  not  until  many 
of  the  workers  have  gone  into  the  life  beyond. 

There  are  many  who  would  die  for  their  country,  but  what  ia 
most  needed  to-day  is  men  and  women  of  courage  who  are  willing 
to  live  for  their  country,  to  live  "  for  the  cause  that  needs  assist- 
ance," and  "  for  the  wrong  that  needs  resistance."  That  is  a  hero- 
ism consistent  with  a  twentieth  century  civilization.  The  most 
costly,  noblest  heroism  is  the  living  sacrifice,  the  sustained  resolve, 
the  courage  of  conviction,  the  daily  consecration  of  powers  to  God 
and  to  humanity. 

"  The  world  is  our  country  and  all  mankind  our  countrymen  '* 
is  the  sentiment  of  true  internationalism. 

"  Only  the  Golden  Eule  of  Christ  can  bring  in  the  Golden  Age 
of  man." 

The  Chaieman:  A  paper  upon  "  Peace  Principles  in  Political 
Life  and  Institutions  "  has  been  prepared  by  Augustine  Jones, 
Principal  of  Friends'  School,  Providence,  Ehode  Island.  Augus- 
tine Jones  found  himself  unable  to  be  present;  the  paper  will, 
therefore,  be  read  by  Timothy  B.  Hussey,  of  Maine. 


PEACE  PRINCIPLES  IN  POLITICAL  LIFE 
AND   INSTITUTIONS. 

BY  AUGUSTINE  JONES,  LL.B.,  PRINCIPAL  FEIENDS'  SCHOOL, 
PEOVIDENCE,  E.  I. 

The  most  essential  outcome,  so  far,  of  political  institutions,  is 
the  establishment  of  peace  and  domestic  tranquillity  within  the  civ- 
ilized nations  themselves.  Municipalities  and  citizens,  in  modern 
times,  submit  their  causes  to  organized  courts  and  to  arbitration 
for  settlement,  and  have  outgrown  trial  by  battle  and  the  brutal 
methods  of  antiquity,  within  the  domain  of  the  nations  where  there 
exists  real  government. 

The  recent  treaties  and  international  efforts  to  apply  the  same 
ethics  in  international  contests,  which  are  so  satisfactory  in  giving 
peace  within  the  nations  themselves,  are  the  strongest  possible  evi- 
dence of  modern  progress  towards  the  peace  of  the  world,  and  the 


125 

most  inspiring  promise  for  the  future  of  the  race.  English  his- 
tory illustrates  the  pacific  effect  within  States  of  the  modern  polit- 
ical structure,  the  union  of  many  small  communities  under  one  gov- 
ernment. The  many  great  federations  in  modern  times  of  once 
belligerent  but  now  peaceful  communities,  dwelling  together  in 
unity,  all  suggest  by  irresistible  logical  sequence  the  holy  alli- 
ance of  the  governments  of  the  world,  in  su])port  of  one  universal 
court  of  international  arbitration.  This  paramount  subject  de- 
mands the  sympathy,  wisdom  and  energy  of  every  Christian  on  the 
globe. 

The  writer  was  admitted  this  past  summer  to  the  court  rooms 
of  the  Permanent  International  Court  of  Arbitration  at  The  Hague, 
The  nineteen  most  important  nations  have  already,  with  certain 
restrictions,  appointed  judges  to  that  court,  and  joined  in  treaty 
obligations  to  abide  by  its  conclusions.  This  structure  is  the  crea- 
tion of  nineteen  States,  or  political  institutions,  resting  themselves 
on  numerous  other  subordinate  political  institutions  down  to  the 
individual  citizen.  If  you  know  what  war  is,  you  cannot  enter  this 
sacred  court  room,  dedicated  to  peace  on  earth  and  goodwill  to 
men,  without  a  throbbing  heart,  for  this  is  indeed  holy  ground. 
The  tremendous  shocks  of  war,  which  would  in  years  to  come  have 
convulsed  nations,  toppled  over  thrones,  fixed  the  fate  of  empires, 
changed  the  map  of  the  world,  extinguished  life  and  light  in  thou- 
sands of  happy  homes,  may  hereafter  on  this  spot  be  prevented  by 
the  potency  of  law  and  time-honored  precedents,  administered  with 
reason  and  justice. 

We  have  thus  far  outlined  what  the  complete  work  already  ac- 
complished through  politics  is,  and  what  gigantic  work  politics 
has  yet  to  do  before  the  millennial  peace  possesses  our  planet. 

But  there  is,  however,  a  more  vital  and  practical  portion  of  our 
subject  to  be  considered;  that  is.  political  life,  or  politics  in  action, 
leavened  with  peace  principles.  Politics  is  the  science  or  practice 
of  government  for  the  preservation  of  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
the  State.  Peace  is,  then,  one  of  the  most  important  objects  to  be 
sought  in  government. 

If  the  principles  of  peace  are  to  be  active  in  politics,  they  must 
take  hold  of  public  opinion,  "  the  governing  principle  in  human  af- 
fairs," as  Alexander  Hamilton  said,  with  a  strenuous  purpose  born 
of  conviction  that  they  are  the  greatest  need  of  human  society  at 
this  moment,  that  they  are  the  very  essence  of  Christianity,  which 
is  love  to  God  and  to  men.  The  principles  of  peace  must  be  agi- 
tated, until  the  public  mind  is  awakened  to  its  highest  duty;  then 
politics  will  be  potent  to  advance  the  cause.  Christian  ministers 
ought  to  be  the  anointed  heralds  of  this  gospel;  they  ought  ex 
officio  to  proclaim  these  principles  upon  every  house  top,  and  every 
Christian  soul  ought  to  join  in  the  chorus,  to  agitate  and  agitate 
without  ceasing. 

I  very  much  doubt  if  this  question  would  have  been  presented 


126 

here,  if  there  had  not  been  two  different  kinds  of  politics  in  the 
world.  One  seeks  the  public  good  at  personal  loss  and  even  suffer- 
ing; this  is  heroic  patriotism;  the  other  barters  the  public  interest 
for  selfish,  mean  ends.  Men  of  this  last  class  can  have  very  little 
interest  in  the  peaceable  fruits  of  righteousness.  If  they  seek  your 
vote,  it  is  in  general  for  a  purpose  which  you  cannot  approve,  and 
you  find  it  a  critical  work  to  make  any  entangling  alliances 
with  them.  These  are  the  two  extreme  classes  in  politics,  with 
totally  different  ethics.  We  must,  however,  take  into  account  that 
few  men  are  wholly  bad  or  good,  and  that  there  is  a  large  number 
of  men  in  politics  who  are  rather  neutral,  moved  from  time  to  time, 
like  the  ballast  box,  with  tlie  changing  wind  and  tide. 

Can  any  man  who  belongs  to  the  upright  class  of  politicians 
who  act  from  lofty  ethical  motives  have  influence  and  be  useful 
with  and  among  politicians  of  all  classes  and  bear  through  it  all  a 
stainless  character  and  an  uncorrupted  soul?  One  very  acute  ob- 
server of  public  men  once  asked:  "Who  touches  politics  and  is 
thenceforth  clean  ?  "  We  answer  without  hesitation,  John  Bright, 
Charles  Sumner,  and  a  host  beside  them. 

Probably  no  man  was  ever  more  thoroughly  imbued  with  peace 
principles,  ever  endured  more  in  his  own  person  for  them,  ever  bore 
aloft  the  white  flag  of  peace  more  irresistibly  and  gloriously  than 
Bright,  indifferent  to  the  jeers  and  scoffs  which  fell  firelike  on  his 
spirit,  sensitive  as  a  woman's,  but  majestic  and  unconquerable  like 
Cromwell's,  England's  greatest  orator. 

How  was  it  that  this  man,  almost  alone,  saw  great  public  evils  as 
no  other  public  man  seemed  to  do,  with  the  eye  of  a  prophet;  saw, 
and  with  a  voice  which  had  no  equal  for  power  and  beauty,  spoke 
words  of  truth  and  soberness,  often  unheeded,  nevertheless  words 
brim  full  of  wisdom,  loud  warnings  of  impending  danger?  Strange 
to  say,  he  never  gave  false  alarms.  The  causes  which  he  advocated 
were  sustained  by  subsequent  history,  with  hardly  an  exception. 
No  other  public  man's  record  was  ever  more  absolutely  vindicated 
by  time  and  events. 

He  himself  attributed  it  to  his  lifelong  training  in  the  Society 
of  Fxiends.  He  had  been  taught  to  mind  the  Light  within,  Christ 
within  and  conscience,  to  avoid  all  expedients  in  public  and  private 
life  which  did  not  accord  with  the  inner  witness.    He  says: 

I  do  not  know  why  I  differed  from  other  people  so  much,  but  some- 
times I  have  thought  it  happened  from  the  education  I  had  received  in  the 
religious  sect  with  \\hich  I  am  connected.  We  have  no  creed  which  nion- 
archs  and  statesmen  and  high  priests  have  written  out  for  us.  Our  creed 
so  far  as  we  comprehend  it,  comes  pure  and  direct  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. We  have  no  thirty-seven  articles  to  declare  that  it  is  lawful  for 
Christian  men,  at  the  command  of  the  civil  magistrate,  to  wear  weapons 
and  to  serve  in  ^\ars — which  means,  of  course,  and  was  intended  to  mean, 
that  it  is  lawful  for  a  Christian  man  to  engage,  in  any  part  of  the  world, 
in  any  cause,  at  the  command  of  a  monarch,  or  of  a  prime  minister,  or 
of  a  parliament,  or  of  a  commander-in-chief,  in  the  slaughter  of  his  fellow- 
men,  whom  he  might  never  have  seen  before,  and  from  whom  he  had  not 


1-27 

received  tlie  ^inallost  injury,  and  against  whom  he  had  no  reason  to  feel 
the  smallest  touch  of  anger  or  resentment.  Now  my  having  heen  brought 
up  as  I  was  would  lead  me  naturally  to  think  that  going  3,000  miles  off, — 
for  it  is  nearly  as  far  as  that  by  sea, — to  carry  on  the  war  with  Russia 
in  the  Crimea,  was  a  matter  that  required  very  distinct  evidence  to  show 
that  it  was  lawful,  or  that  it  was  in  any  way  politic  or  desirable. 

John  Bright  for  two  years  (1854-1856)  constantly  opposed  the 
was  with  Russia,  almost  alone.  He  suffered  great  abuse  from  the 
press  and  from  other  sources.  He  had  been  very  popular,  and  re- 
ceived everywhere  welcome  plaudits,  swelling  the  notes  of  praise 
for  years,  but  his  firm  attitude  against  the  wars  with  Russia  and 
China  cost  him  his  seat  as  representative  in  Parliament  for  Man- 
chester, and  serious  illness  came  to  him  from  political  anxiety. 
Birmingham  immediately  elected  him  as  her  representative,  in 
Avhich  office  he  remained  during  his  life.  He  has  given  the  follow- 
ing vivid  description  of  his  conflict: 

Well,  I  cannot  forget  all  that  took  place  on  that  occasion.  There  is 
much  of  it  I  wish  I  "could  forget.  I  wish  I  could  forget  the  slanders 
that  were  uttered  against  me;  slanders  from  many  writers  of  the  press, 
and.  I  am  sorry  to  say,  some  of  the  most  bitter  were  from  those  people 
who  are  supposed  to  write  for  the  religious  newspapers.  T  should  be 
glad  if  I  could  forget  that  T  was  at  one  time  hissed  and  hooted  by  mobs, 
and  forget,  further,  a  story  that  I  was  burnt  in  effigy  by  those  I  was 
most  anxious  to  serve;  and,  finally,  that  in  consequence  of  the  course  I 
took  on  a  great  public  question.  I  lost  my  seat  in  Parliament  for  one  of 
the  first  constituencies  in  the  kingdom.  But  I  may  recollect  that,  after 
all,  I  never  lost  the  sense,  and  I  have  not  lost  it  yet,  that  I  did  what 
was  my  duty  to  my  country,  under  the  tryingand  difficult  circumstances  in 
which  I  was  placed. 

He  favored  always  "  peace,  retrenchment  and  reform."  His 
most  notable  speeches,  some  of  them,  were  made  against  increase  in 
armament,  against  more  extended  defences.  He  was  intensely  op- 
posed to  meddling  in  the  differences  between  foreign  nations.  He 
struggled  to  avoid  entangling  alliances  with  other  countries.  This 
had  been  the  policy  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  Charles  James  Fox, 
Sir  Robert  Peel  and  others,  though  not  successful  always.  But  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  noble,  self-sacrificing,  patriotic,  was  the  chief  proto- 
type in  the  political  character  and  course  of  John  Bright,  in  inter- 
national affairs.  A  double  portion  of  the  spirit  of  Elijah  did  rest 
on  Elisha.  Peel  was  taken  away  suddenly,  but  he  left  a  worthy 
exponent  to  uphold  and  vindicate  his  political  doctrines. 

John  Bright  was  opposed  in  1882  to  the  war  in  Egypt,  as  he  was 
to  all  wars  everywhere,  including  the  Afghan  and  Zulu,  and  he 
very  soon  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Cabinet,  an  office  worth  to  him 
ten  thousand  dollars  annually,  beside  the  dignity  and  honor  which 
attended  it.  This  he  did  without  hesitation,  although  it  might  es- 
trange him  from  his  life-long  political  and  social  friends.  He  has 
given,  fortunately,  his  own  most  interesting  account  of  this  painful 
severance.     He  said  in  the  House  of  Commons,  July  17th,  1882: 


128 

The  Hou^e  knows,  at  all  events,  those  who  have  had  an  opportunity  of 
observing  any  of  the  facts  of  my  political  life  for  forty  years,  know,  that 
at  least  I  have  endeavored  from  time  to  time  to  teach  my  countrymen 
an  opinion  and  doctrine  which  I  hold,  which  is,  that  the  moral  law  is  not 
intended  only  for  individual  life,  but  is  intended  also  for  the  life  and 
practice  of  States.  I  think  in  the  present  case  there  has  been  a  manifest 
violation  of  international  law — and  of  moral  law — and  therefore  it  is  im- 
possible for  me  to  give  any  support  to  it.  I  cannot  repudiate  what  I  have 
preached  and  taught  during  the  period  of  a  rather  long  political  life.  I 
cannot  turn  my  back  upon  my  belief  and  deny  all  that  I  have  taught  to 
many  thousands  of  others  during  the  forty  years  I  have  been  permitted 
in  public  meetings  and  in  this  House  to  address  my  countrymen.  One 
word  onlj'  more.  I  asked  my  calm  judgment  and  my  conscience  what  was 
the  path  of  right  to  take.  They  pointed  it  out  to  me  with  an  unerring 
finger,  and  I  am  humbly  endeavoring  to  follow  it. 

The  most  conspicuous  feature  of  John  Bright  as  an  apostle  of 
peace  principles  in  political  action, was  his  firm  foundation  upon  the 
bed  rock  of  Christian  New  Testament  ethics;  there  was  no  confu- 
sion in  his  mind.  His  course  was  directed  by  the  true  polar  star  of 
morals.     He  said  again  in  1858: 

May  I  beg  you,  then,  to  believe,  as  I  do  most  devoutly  believe,  that 
the  moral  law  was  not  written  for  men  alone  in  their  individual  churches, 
but  that  it  was  written  as  well  for  nations,  and  for  nations  great  as  this 
of  which  we  are  citizens.  I  believe,  too,  that  if  nations  reject  and  deride 
that  moral  law,  there  is  a  penalty  which  inevitably  follows;  it  may  not 
come  at  once — it  may  not  come  in  our  lifetime — but,  depend  upon  it,  the 
gi'eat  Italian  is  not  only  a  poet,  but  he  is  a  prophet  when  he  says: 
"  The  sword  of  Heaven  is  not  in  haste  to  smite 
Nor  yet  doth  linger." 

How  his  soul  would  be  stirred  if  he  were  now  living,  over  the 
sickening  details  of  the  South  African  war.  The  Zulu  war  was 
but  as  a  fly  by  an  eagle  to  the  violence  of  this  one,  and  yet  how 
earnest  was  his  protest  against  that.  If  he  had  been  in  Parliament 
these  recent  months,  the  present  British  Cabinet,  dishonored  and 
discredited  by  unholy  conquest,  would  have  felt  the  weight  of  his 
tremendous  moral  prestige,  his  cogent  and  irresistible  eloquence, 
and  yet  above  all  his  consummate  ability  to  convince  and  change 
votes.  It  may  reasonably  be  doubted  whether  the  present  war 
could  have  had  existence  if  Bright  and  Gladstone  had  been  alive 
and  in  the  councils  of  the  nation. 

The  last  words  of  his  which  I  shall  quote  ring  out  like  inspired 
prophecy  of  the  recent  sad  events  in  British  annals.  He  said,  you 
remember:  "  We  have  the  unchangeable  principles  of  the  moral 
law  to  guide  us,  and  only  so  far  as  we  live  by  that  guidance  can 
we  be  permanently  a  great  nation,  or  our  people  a  happy  people." 

My  friends,  those  were  words  of  soberness  and  wisdom.  The 
English  people  have  not,  in  this  unjust  and  cruel  war,  been  under 
the  "  guidance  "  of  the  moral  law,  and  they  are  not  now  a  happy 
people.  Multitudes  of  their  noblest  youth  have  perished;  their 
homes  are  desolate,  mothers  refuse  to  be  comforted.  Her  public 
debt  increases  fearfully.    England  has  lost  her  exalted,  proud  lead- 


129 

ership  and  supremacy  in  the  galaxy  of  nations.  Her  enemies,  bid- 
ing their  time,  in  the  hour  of  her  bitter  distress,  in  a  long-drawn- 
o\it  war  with  less  favored  communities,  scoff  at  her,  and  if  they 
dared,  would  evidently  extend  her  afflictions  and  w^eaken  her. 
There  is  only  one  safe  course  for  men  and  nations  alike,  and  that 
is  to  do  right. 

I  have  chosen  John  Bright,  with  his  forty  years  of  experience 
in  the  British  Parliament  and  in  public  life,  a  thorough  outspoken 
apostle  of  peace  principles,  fearless,  able  and  consistent  in  his  sup- 
port of  the  cause  in  every  vicissitude  of  his  political  fortunes,  be- 
cause he  is  considered  historically  the  greatest  and  most  conspicu- 
ous advocate  in  political  life  who  has  voiced  those  principles.  His 
life  work  in  upholding  the  cause  of  peace  before  the  whole  world 
at  its  commercial  center,  himself  long  a  prominent  member  of  the 
government  of  the  most  powerful  nation  in  the  world,  his  noble 
moral  character,  each  and  all  contributed  to  extend  his  ceaseless 
influence  world  wide.  He  has  settled  forever,  both  in  Parliament 
and  in  public  meetings  all  over  the  kingdom,  that  peace  principles 
can  be  effectively  presented  and  agitated  with  great  success.  He 
has  shown  that,  under  the  influence  of  a  venal  and  warlike  press, 
a  senseless  delirium  for  war  may  be  created,  which  subsides  after 
cruel  slaughter  and  havoc,  and  this  is  followed  by  sober  reason, 
repentance  and  sorrow;  that  there  have  been  no  wars  for  centuries 
■which  in  the  end  have  been  by  wise  and  pure  men  regarded  as 
necessary  or  useful  to  mankind.  John  Bright  and  his  coadjutors 
did  more  to  advance  the  peace  cause  than  had  been  done  for  cen- 
turies in  all  lands  before  their  time. 

From  the  group  of  men  that  surrounded  John  Bright  the  gospel 
of  peace  was  carried  to  the  heart  of  Alexander  of  Russia,  and  the 
light  that  was  then  set  up  still  burns  brightly  from  the  throne  of  all 
the  Russias.  Hence  we  have  the  Conference  at  The  Hague.  No 
one  can  study  faithfully  the  influence  of  these  persons  in  this  cause, 
and  reasonably  doubt  that  by  agitation  the  public  mind  may  be 
aroused  to  the  enormity  of  evil,  and  that  public  sentiment  is  om- 
nipotent in  political  life  and  institutions. 

Fifty  years  of  congresses  of  nations  held  in  different  countries, 
composed  of  eminent,  representative  publicists  and  statesmen,  and 
conferences  like  that  now  held  annually  at  Lake  Mohonk,  have  cre- 
ated public  opinion  and  powerfully  inspired  political  institutions 
with  peace  principles,  the  fruit  of  which  appears  in  treaties,  in  a 
court  of  international  arbitration,  and  even  in  a  touch  of  altruism 
in  the  very  laws  of  war. 

We  might  properly  include  the  influence  of  all  the  distinguished 
men,  writers,  orators,  agitators  and  earnest  Christian  souls,  un- 
known to  the  world  but  registered  on  high,  who  have  struggled  in 
season  and  out  of  season  to  enlighten  their  fellow  men,  to  create 
public  opinion,  and  who  have,  without  knowing  it,  been  guiding 
political  life  and  institutions. 


130 

The  recent  international  reciprocity  movement,  which  seems 
to  promise  very  much  in  the  future  for  the  peace  of  the  world,  is 
the  masterful  work  of  political  organizations  seeking  profit  chiefly 
through  peace  principles.  The  white-winged  ships  of  commerce, 
and  the  great  and  small  ocean  steamships,  freighted  with  the  prod- 
ucts of  every  zone,  are  gradually  gathering  the  nations  into  com- 
munion and  intercourse,  which  must  end  at  last,  if  continued,  in 
the  federation  of  nations,  in  arbitration  and  peace,  developed  and 
directed  by  the  political  life  and  political  institutions  of  the  world. 

We  must  not  be  in  haste  for  heavenly  perfection,  but  take 
knowledge  of  the  Divine  patience  which  has  brooded  over  erring 
humanity  many  centuries.  How  little  does  the  race  yet  compre- 
hend that  Light  which  came  to  this  world  two  thousand  years  ago, 
and  has  never  ceased  to  enter  constantly  thick  spiritual  and  intel- 
lectual darkness.  Yet  progress  is  certain;  now  slowly,  now  rapidly, 
the  light  of  civilization  extends.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between 
the  savage,  barbaric  life  that  once  was  and  the  enlightenment  in 
the  most  favored  nations  of  to-day. 

Truth  seems  to  us  sometimes  to  retire  before  the  armies  of  the 
aliens,  but  it  is  really  ever  uppermost,  and  following  we  may  always 
look  for  great  and  permanent  advance.  We  verily  thought  a  few 
years  since  that  we  had  come  out  at  last  into  the  eternal  sunshine  of 
peace,  but  we  were  hurled  back  suddenly  by  the  two  most  enlight- 
ened nations  into  dark  clouds  and  cruel  war,  without  necessity  or 
reason. 

But  the  bitter  lesson  which  is  following  these  deliriums  of  war 
and  blood  will  teach  us,  if  we  can  learn  it  no  other  way,  the  wick- 
edness, foolishness  and  extravagance  of  both  conquests. 

The  burdens  of  war  in  all  ages  fall  upon  the  poor  and  weak 
most  heavily;  they  are  slaughtered,  they  are  taxed,  they  suffer  most. 
They  are  God's  outraged  poor  everywhere,  broken-hearted  mothers, 
sisters  and  lovers,  whom  no  sympathy  can  reach,  only  pity,  for  it  is 
the  iron  fate  of  war.  The  Christian  ministers  might  close  the  gates 
of  war  forever,  but  instead  they,  with  lusty  enthusiasm,  blow  the 
bugle  blast  and  let  loose  the  dogs  of  war,  consecrate  the  simple, 
childlike  victim  devoted  to  war  and  his  weapons,  and  exhort  him  to 
do  anything  but  remember  his  New  Testament  and  its  words, 
"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 

The  remedy  is  enlightened  Christian  public  opinon,  in  political 
life  and  institutions. 

The  Chairman:  The  discussion  of  the  topics  raised  in  the  pa- 
pers of  the  afternoon,  which  will  continue  for  not  more  than  half 
an  hour,  will  be  opened  by  Dr.  Edward  H,  Magill,  of  Swarthmore 
College. 

Edward  H.  Magill:  If  the  discussion  of  these  papers  means 
finding  any  fault  with  what  has  been  presented,  I  surely  have  noth- 


131 

ing  whatever  to  say.  These  three  papers,  being  naturally  connect- 
ed, have  presented  a  very  bright  and  hopeful  outlook  for  the  cause 
of  peace. 

I  have  only  a  few  words  to  say  on  the  one  point  of  "  Interna- 
tionalism," presented  in  one  of  the  papers  this  afternoon,  just  to 
emphasize  what  has  been  said.  Six  years  ago  a  system  of  interna- 
tional correspondence  between  professors  and  students  in  different 
nations  was  started  by  Professor  Millet,  who  lives  in  Southern 
France.  He  thought  "that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  the  sake  of 
the  study  of  the  languages  that  students  should  interchange  let- 
ters and  correct  each  other's  letters,  and  also  that  it  would  be  a  very 
valuable  means  of  making  the  citizens  of  the  different  nations  ac- 
quainted with  each  other  and  thus  tend  to  remove  misunderstand- 
ings and  causes  of  war.  To-day  there  are  between  12,000  and 
15,000  letters  going  all  the  time  between  the  nations  of  France, 
England,  Germany,  Italy,  the  United  States,  Spain  and  Canada. 
What  a  significant  thing  it  is  that  the  central  bureau  in  Italy,  in 
Milan,  should  be  under  the  charge  of  the  Peace  Association.  E.  T, 
Moneta  is  president  of  that  peace  society,  and  he  conducts  the 
bureau  there.  Dr.  Hartman,  in  Leipzig,  is  very  much  interested 
in  the  cause  of  peace,  and  he  is  conducting  the  bureau  there.  Pro- 
fessor Millet,  in  France,  who  invented  the  system  and  has  done  so 
much  to  put  it  forward,  and  is  a  prolific  writer,  sends  me  whole 
reams  of  paper  on  the  subject  of  peace.  He  writes  much  for  the 
journals  of  France.  His  wife  is  president  of  a  peace  society  in 
France.  "W.  T.  Stead,  the  editor  of  the  Review  of  Reviews,  who 
is  so  highly  regarded  by  most  of  us,  but  who  has  lost  recently  much 
of  his  standing  in  England,  largely  because  of  his  bold  stand 
against  the  Boer  War,  is  interested  in  the  movement.  His  office 
is  the  central  bureau  for  England.  The  central  bureau  in  thia 
country  is  not  far  away  (at  Swarthmore,  Pa.). 

We  have  first,  then,  in  this  work,  the  teaching  of  the  languages; 
but  we  know  that  the  correspondence  will  make  pupils  acquainted 
with  each  other  and  that  thus  will  come  about  an  exchange  of  views 
and  a  wider  acquaintance  among  the  young  people  of  the  rising 
generation. 

We  have  got  to  wait  until  this  generation  passes  away  before 
we  can  expect  the  great  things  that  we  have  been  speaking  of  this 
afternoon.  When  I  was  a  boy  1  could  wait  till  to-morrow  or  the  next 
day,  or  perhaps  the  day  after,  for  anything  I  wanted  very  badly,  but 
not  beyond  that.  Now,  if  I  can  get  something  accomplished  in  four 
or  five  generations,  or  before  the  twentieth  century  is  over,  I  shall 
feel  comfortably  well  satisfied.  We  shall  have  to  be  satisfied  to 
get  perhaps  late  in  the  twentieth  century  these  things  that  you 
have  heard  predicted  this  afternoon.  In  a  few  days  we  shall  finish 
one  year  of  it,  and  we  shall  have  ninety-nine  more  years  left  to  do 
work  in. 

I  will  close  by  saying  that  the  secret  of  the  whole  business  of 


132 

making  all  such  changes  is  to  begin  with  the  young,  to  begin  in  the 
home,  and  then  to  continue  in  the  school,  in  business,  everywhere, 
to  carry  out  these  principles  of  peace,  of  brotherly  love,  of  the 
golden  rule.  A  Golden  Rule  Brotherhood  was  established  a  year 
ago  last  August  in  New  York.  Its  purposes  were  fully  set  forth 
at  the  Pan-American  Exposition  at  Buffalo  this  year.  It  has  a 
small  actual  membership.  But  the  Golden  Eule  Sisterhood,  as 
May  Wright  Sewall,  its  president,  reported  in  Buffalo,  has  a  mem- 
bership of  several  millions.  The  way  to  get  to  be  a  member  of 
either  of  these  is  to  make  up  your  mind  that  you  are  going  to 
act  on  the  Golden  Rule.  Everybody  knows  that  the  Golden  Rule 
is  a  very  old  story.  But  it  is  an  entirely  new  thing  to  put  it  in 
practice.  Those,  therefore,  who  make  up  their  minds  that  they 
will  obey  it  every  day,  as  far  as  possible,  will  be  truly  members  of 
the  Golden  Rule  Brotherhood  or  the  Golden  Rule  Sisterhood,  and 
will  thus  help  to  bring  about  the  great  results  at  which  we  are  aim- 
ing. 

^ 
The  Chaikmax:     The  papers  presented  this  afternoon  are  now 
open  for  general  discussion. 

Stephen  R.  Smith:  This  expression  has  weighed  with  me 
much  to-day:  "Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  do  it  with  thy 
might."  I  have  listened  with  gi'eat  interest  and  rejoicing  to  the 
many  splendid  papers  that  have  been  presented  and  the  discussions 
that  have  followed  them.  I  have  been  enthused  with  them.  I 
have  enjoyed  seeing  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  its  great  buildings  and 
its  City  Hall.  But  at  the  entrance  to  the  hall  there  is  an  equestrian 
statue  of  a  warrior  of  the  flesh;  then  there  is  at  the  top  the  grand 
monument  to  William  Penn,  who  was  pre-eminently  the  preacher 
of  righteousness  and  of  peace.  His  "  holy  experiment "  in  govern- 
ment was  a  great  deed.  His  treaty  with  the  Indians  was  the  only 
one  that  was  ever  cemented  without  an  oath,  and  said  to  be  the 
only  one  ever  kept  between  nations.  But  there  I  beheld,  staring 
me  in  the  face  at  the  orifices  of  the  building,  six  grim  engines  of 
destruction.  Friends,  we  need  to  change  public  opinion  on  these 
matters.  If  Ave  have  been  enthused  here,  we  need  to  take  that 
enthusiasm  home  with  us  and  engage  in  home  missionary  work. 
We  need  the  spirit  of  Christ  in  our  souls,  our  whole  being  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  we  may  do  our  work  effectively,  as  George 
Fox  did  his.  Let  us  not  forget,  as  we  go  home,  that  we  do  not  wish 
to  have  it  said  that  this  Congress  was  simply  a  mutual  admiration 
society.  Let  us  put  our  shoulder  to  the  wheel  and  work  while  it 
is  day. 

The  Chairman:  I  would  like  to  suggest  to  my  friend  Stephen 
E.  Smith  that  possibly  those  disused  and  decrepit  cannon  in  the 
plaza  of  our  City  Hall  may  be  symbols  of  the  wornoutness  and  use- 


133 

lessness,  the  "  gonebyncss/'  if  you  will  allow  me  to  use  the  word,  of 
the  system  of  war;  for  certainly  no  one  could  fire  them  off,  and 
they  are  perfectly  harmless. 

David  Ferris:  I  have  listened  with  intense  interest  to  the 
various  papers  read,  and  the  views  expressed  on  this  vital  question 
of  war,  now  so  earnestly  engaging  our  attention.  We,  who  call 
ourselves  Friends,  are  almost  unanimous  in  pronouncing  all  war  in- 
consistent with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  with  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity. I  have  nothing  to  add  by  way  of  argument.  I  want  to  en- 
dorse the  views  expressed.  Though  variously  worded  and  given 
from  different  points  of  view,  they  all  converge  to  the  same  general 
conclusion.    I  unite  with  that  conclusion. 

I  wish  lovingly  to  exhort  Friends  to  more  faithfulness  in  living 
this  vital  testimony  of  '"peace  and  goodwill";  that  it  may  perme- 
ate our  life  and  pass  from  us  as  the  healing  from  Jesus;  that  we 
may  live,  as  George  Fox  said,  "  in  the  virtue  of  that  life  which  takes 
away  the  occasion  of  war." 

I  have  felt  that  during  the  past  three  years,  while  the  war  fever, 
like  a  moral  pestilence,  has  swept  over  our  land,  we  Friends  have 
not  exerted  the  influence  that  we  should  have  done  on  public  senti- 
ment regarding  war.  Why?  Because  too  many  of  us  have  com- 
promised, have  excused,  have  palliated  the  wrong.  While  many 
have  worked  earnestly  to  stay  the  curse,  there  have  been  many 
others  who  have  used  such  excuses  as  these:  "  God  can  bring  good 
out  of  this  seeming  evil,"  "  We  must  be  loyal  to  our  government." 
Our  political  affiliations  have  been  a  source  of  weakness.  Choosing 
the  least  of  two  evils  is  not  an  uncommon  plea.  Some  of  us  have 
even  gone  so  far  as  to  justify  the  present  Philippine  war.  These 
Friends  may  be  honest  and  sincere,  but  I  think  the  war  excitement 
has  warped  their  judgment  so  that  they  cannot  see  clearly. 

Will  not  such  excuses,  if  carried  to  their  logical  conclusions, 
justify  any  iniquity  or  cruelty  that  the  mind  can  conceive?  So  our 
"  trumpet  has  given  an  uncertain  sound,"  and  we  have  not  exerted 
the  influence  against  the  present  wars,  Avhich  a  faithful  upholding 
of  this  precious  testimony  would  have  given  us. 

Even  in  our  most  unselfish  and  honest  endeavors  to  promote  jus- 
tice and  truth  we  must  expect  opposition;  "for  so  persecuted  they 
the  prophets  before  "  us;  or  as  our  Quaker  poet  says: 

"  Every   age  on   him   who   strays 
From  its  broad  and  beaten  ways 
Pours  its  seven-fold  vial." 


134 

"We  need  a  higher  courage  than  is  shown  on  the  battlefield,  for 
we  must  sometimes  bear  the  condemnation  of  those  dear  and  near 
to  us. 

"Hard  to  bear  the  stranger's  scoflf; 
Hard  the  old  friends'  falling  otl"; 

Hard  to  learn  forgiving. 
But  the  Lord  his  own  rewards.. 
And  his  love  with  their's  accords 

Warm  and  fresh  and  living." 

Do  not  justice  and  true  patriotism  and  our  Christian  profession 
of  peace  plead  with  us  to  unite  in  using  our  influence  with  our 
country  and  government  to  give  freedom  to  these  injured  and  op- 
pressed people  who  have  been  so  long  and  so  earnestly  struggling 
for  it?    Can  we  not  all  unite  in  this  good  work? 

"  Have  we  been  faithful  as  we  knew, 
To  God  and  to  our  brother  true; 
To  Heaven  and  earth  ?  " 

Are  these  meetings  we  have  been  holding  an  augury  of  our  fu- 
ture united  action  to  bring  peace  to  our  country?  If  so,  we  may 
take  courage  and  have  faith  that  a  brighter  day  is  dawning;  for 
when  all  Friends  can  be  united  in  a  righteous  cause  they  will  carry 
conviction  with  them. 

In  all  the  papers  read  and  the  addresses  made  the  Christian 
standard  of  overcoming  evil  with  good  has  been  upheld.  It  has 
been  a  great  satisfaction  to  attend  this  Convention.  I  feel  it  is  the 
opening  of  a  better  day  for  Friends.  It  is  a  reunion  full  of  hope. 
Let  us  work  cordially  together  for  the  help  and  uplift  of  humanity, 
and  the  work  will  draw  us  nearer  together  in  Christian  love.  Then, 
if  we  can  unite  in  trying  to  influence  our  government  to  give  the 
Filipinos  their  liberty,  that  we  may  hope  will  be  eventually  success- 
ful, then  we  will  have  done  our  part  to 

"  Break  the  chain,  the  yoke  remove. 

And  strike  to  earth  oppression's  rod. 

With  those  mild  arms  of  truth  and  love, 

Made  mighty  through  the  living  God." 

Anna  Beaithwaite  Thomas:  I  have  been  deeply  interested 
in  this  question  of  internationalism.  The  means  that  have  been 
brought  forward  in  the  last  few  years  for  bringing  the  nations  of 
the  world  into  harmony  with  each  other  are  altogether  in  line  with 
the  root-truth  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  You  may  remember  how 
George  Fox  said,  "  Friends,  be  universal  in  your  spirits."  A  belief 
that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  deals  with  every  human  soul  should 
make  us  interested  in  every  individual  whom  God  has  created.  It 
makes  no  difference  whether  they  are  black  or  white,  Americans, 
English,  Boer,  Filipino,  Chinese,  or  what  not.     It  is  this  principle 


135 

of  the  love  of  God  to  every  individual  soul  that  has  made  me  a 
peace  woman,  and  lead  me  to  try  to  put  peace  principles  into  action. 
I  have  been  thrown  in  the  course  of  my  life  with  people  of  different 
countries.  As  a  girl,  I  went  with  my  parents  on  a  religious  visit 
through  Europe.  I  was  brought  in  that  way  into  close  touch  with 
the  people  in  France,  Germany,  Switzerland  and  Italy.  I  became 
intensely  interested  in  many  of  them;  I  saw  their  religious  life;  I 
was  present  in  meetings  where  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  came 
upon  us,  and  I  was  baptized  into  sympathy  with  many  of  the  peo- 
ple. Could  I  afterwards  view  with  any  satisfaction  the  thought  of 
war  with  those  people  whom  I  knew  and  loved  individually?  I 
have  since  been  brought  into  close  touch  with  Christian  people  in 
Norway  and  Denmark  and  other  places.  I  have  relatives  and 
friends  in  the  East,  in  Japan,  in  China,  in  South  Africa,  even. 
When  we  get  into  this  Christian  touch  with  other  peoples,  we  begin 
to  understand  that  war  cannot  be  God's  will.  When  such  beautiful 
ideas  as  those  of  peace  are  held  up  before  us,  we  say  sometimes, 
"That  is  idealism."  Well,  what  is  idealism?  Idealism  is  the 
truth.  I  believe;  and  whenever  we  see  anything  beautiful  or  true  or 
good,  we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  that  is  God's  will.  The  beau- 
tiful ideal  of  peace,  universal  peace,  I  am  not  prepared  to  wait 
even  one  century  for  the  fulfillment  of  it.  Why  should  we  wait? 
If  the  Christian  Church,  if  even  the  whole  body  of  Friends,  would 
rise  in  power,  in  the  power  of  God,  we  could  bring  in  the  day  of 
peace  much  sooner  than  the  end  of  this  century. 

The  Conference  then,  after  announcements  and  a  moment  of 
silence,  adjourned  till  S  p.m. 


Stitb  Session. 


Sixth-day  Evening.  Twelfth  Month  13th. 

The  Conference  re-assembled  in  Witheispoon  Hall,  for  its  sixth 
session,  at  8  p.m.,  under  the  presidency  of  Joshua  L.  Baily.  A  few 
moments  were  given  to  silent  waiting  upon  God. 

The  Chairman:  Those  of  us  who  have  had  the  privilege  of 
attending  the  sessions  of  the  Conference  yesterday  and  to-day  can- 
not have  failed  to  notice  the  gradual  development  of  the  doctrine 
and  practice  of  peace  as  set  forth  in  the  different  papers  which  have 
been  read. 

First,  "  The  New  Testament  Ground  of  Peace,"  as  presented  in 
the  admirable  paper  of  Professor  Eussell,  and  then  "  The  Elements 
of  Peace  Doctrine  in  the  Old  Testament,"  as  unfolded  in  the  schol- 
arly paper  of  Doctor  Barton,  all  showing  the  gradual  progress  lead- 
ing up  to  and  reaching  its  full  development  in  the  teaching  of  our 
Lord . 

The  Decalogue  brought  do^vn  from  the  mountain  in  the  hands 
of  Moses,  and  our  Lord's  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  were  shown  to  be 
harmonious  parts  of  one  beneficent  scheme  in  which  was  manifested 
.the  Brotherhood  of  Man  as  well  as  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  We 
were  shown  that  the  early  Christian  Church  was  uniform  in  its  tes- 
timony to  the  peaceable  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  "  I  am  a  Chris- 
tian and  therefore  I  cannot  fight  "  being  the  all-sufficient  reason  as- 
signed for  the  maintenance  of  their  peace  principles. 

Passing  down  the  centuries  we  were  shown  how  primitive  Chris- 
tianity declined  as  Church  and  State  became  united,  men  forsaking 
the  teacliing  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  and  seeking  the  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity by  force  of  arras.  It  was  claimed  that  not  until  the  middle 
of  the  Seventeenth  Century  were  the  peaceable  principles  of  primi- 
tive Christianity  revived  by  the  preaching  of  Fox  and  Penn  and 
Barclay.  We  were  made  sorrowfully  aware  of  the  sad  extent  to 
which  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church,  not  excepting  our  own 
portion  of  it,  had  so  often  failed  to  bear  a  consistent  testimony 
against  all  wars  and  fightings. 

"  The  Inherent  Immorality  of  War  "  and  "  The  Christian  Idea 
of  Force  "  were  the  subjects  of  two  valuable  papers,  the  clear  teach- 
ing of  both  being  profitably  emphasized  by  several  speakers. 

We  were  reminded  of  the  duty  of  parents  and  teachers  to  incul- 
cate the  principles  of  peace  in  the  home  as  well  as  in  the  Bible 
School,  and  "  The  Opportunities  and  Eesponsibility  of  Woman  for 
Promoting  Peace  Principles  "  were  presented  in  an  earnest  appeal. 


137 

The  peace  principles  which  should  govern  us  in  political  life 
were  also  forcihly  presented,  and  the  consistent  position  in  oppo- 
sition to  all  war  so  steadfastly  maintained  by  the  illustrious  Quaker 
statesman  of  England,  the  late  John  Bright,  was  commended  as  an 
example  worthy  of  emulation. 

And  now,  having  gone  thi^  far,  it  is  proposed  that  we  this  even- 
ing review  the  field  from  quite  a  different  standpoint.  It  seems  al- 
most like  taking  a  backward  step  to  open  anew  the  question  as  to 
''  the  extent  to  which  peace  principles  are  practicable/'  and  yet  this 
is  the  query  propounded  as  I  read  it  in  the  printed  program  for  this 
evening.  It  having  been  shown  to  us  that  the  Gospel  of  Peace  is 
graven  in  the  very  bed  rock  of  our  Christianity,  that  for  the  main- 
tenance of  their  testimony  against  war  the  early  Christians,  as  well 
as  the  early  Quakers,  suffered  imprisonment  and  divers  tortures, 
and  even  the  loss  of  life  itself;  and  in  view  of  the  many  examples  al- 
ready quoted  of  the  triumphs  of  peace  principles  under  the  most 
adverse  circumstances,  is  it  still  an  open  question  "  To  what  extent 
are  peace  principles  practical?"  Fortunately,  the  committee  has 
confided  the  discussion  of  this  question  to  one  so  well  qualified  to 
handle  it  that  I  am  quite  content  to  leave  the  field  to  him. 

The  Chairman:  "To  What  Extent  are  Peace  Principles 
Practicable?"  is  the  topic  which  will  be  spoken  to  by  President 
Sharpless,  of  Haverford  College. 


TO   WHAT  EXTENT  ARE  PEACE  PRINCIPLES 
PRACTICABLE  ? 

BY  PRESIDENT  ISAAC  SHARPLESS,  HAVERFORD  COLLEGE. 

Is  it  ever  right  to  do  wrong?  Will  the  achievement  of  great 
and  beneficent  results  justify  the  commission  of  an  act  which,  but 
for  these  results,  would  be  immoral?  Has  a  man  the  right  to  put 
his  conscience  in  the  path  of  progress  and  impose  the  consequences 
of  his  beliefs  upon  other  people?  May  we  hold  a  theory  as  right  in 
itself  if  in  practice  it  is  impossible? 

These  and  a  great  many  similar  questions  immediately  arise 
to  the  man  who  is  asked  to  solve  the  problems  of  life  in  the  world 
as  at  the  present  constituted.  They  do  not  arise  simply  in  that  ab- 
normal condition  of  things  which  we  call  war,  but  are  ever  present 
with  us  in  our  ordinary  civilization  in  times  of  peace.  We  employ 
detectives  who  lie  and  drink  and  dishonor  trust  and  friendship  be- 
cause we  say  they  are  necessary  for  the  suppression  of  crime.  The 
whole  criminal  administration  is  in  use  of  methods  in  which  a  per- 
fectly moral  man  could  hardly  join.  Business  life  is  not  always  con- 
ditioned upon  perfect  trust  and  honesty,  and  there  are  those  who 
would  say  it  would  be  impossible  to  succeed  on  this  basis.  The  code 
of  politics  justifies  the  commission  of  a  number  of  at  least  doubtful 


•138 

acts,  which,  for  good  ends,  are  winked  at  by  excellent  people.  The 
first  man  that  you  will  meet  on  the  street  will  tell  you  that  while  a 
state  of  society  which  practices  the  precepts  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  would  be  ideally  beautiful,  yet  they  are  entirely  impossible 
of  fulfillment  under  the  present  circumstances  and  may  be  laid 
aside  for  better  times.  It  comes  to  us  as  a  moral  tonic,  but  at  the 
same  time  a  matter  of  surprise,  when  we  hear  a  successful  business 
man  announce  that  he  would  not  accept  a  directorship  in  any  com- 
pany or  own  a  share  of  its  stock  if  any  questionable  methods  for  se- 
curing legislative  favors  were  necessary  to  be  adopted. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  the  answer  of  the  early  Friends  to  these 
questions.  They  were  not  opportunists.  The  least  matter  of  con- 
science was  worth  more  than  the  whole  world.  Better  lose  life  and 
goods,  and  sacrifice  all  future  apparent  good  of  society,  than  violate 
one  iota  of  the  moral  law.  They  could  lose;  they  could  suffer;  they 
could  die;  but  they  could  not  do  wrong. 

But  government,  business,  society  and  politics  at  the  pres- 
ent time  have  codes  of  morals  of  their  own  which  are  perfectly  un- 
derstood and  justified  by  many  excellent  men,  but  which  are  greatly 
different  from  the  code  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no  sub- 
ject on  which  this  divergence  is  more  conspicuous  than  the  subject 
of  war.  The  questions  are  again  and  again  asked  of  "  peace  men  "  : 
"  How  are  you  going  to  apply  your  principles  to  existing  condi- 
tions? What  would  you  have  done  if  you  had  been  in  charge  of 
affairs  at  Eevolutionary  times,  or  during  the  Civil  War?  Your  the- 
ories seem  to  be  in  accord  with  the  highest  Christian  sentiments, 
but  they  are  not  applicable.  It  becomes  necessary  to  fight,  and  the- 
ories of  right  and  wrong  have  to  give  way  in  the  face  of  present 
necessities."  There  are  a  great  many  who  consider  themselves  good 
"  peace  men  "  who  will  go  to  great  lengths  to  avoid  a  war,  and  who 
fully  recognize  the  evils  of  war;  yet  they  say  that  under  desperate 
circumstances  the  evils  of  peace  would  be  still  greater.  They  say 
that  any  abstract  principles  lose  their  validity,  and  that  of  the  two 
courses  possible  we  must  take  the  one  that,  in  our  judgment,  seems 
to  produce  the  fewest  evil  results. 

To  this  class  of  people  several  replies  may  be  made.  One  is  that 
they  cannot  possibly  judge  what  the  results  will  be.  The  wisest  of 
us  are  short-sighted,  and  we  can  probably  in  every  case  reverse  the 
motto  of  Paley  and  say  that  whatever  is  right  is  expedient.  If  a 
Christian  martyr  had  argued  that  he  could  do  more  for  his  cause  by 
living  than  by  dying  in  some  obscure  village  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
he  would  have  had  a  plausible  case.  He  might  have  supposed  that 
many  Christian  converts  would  have  been  the  result  of  his  later  ef- 
forts if  he  would  only  temporize  a  little  and  utter  some  meaningless 
phrase  signifying  his  devotion  to  the  genius  of  the  Emperor.  But 
we  are  now  quite  sure  that  his  death  meant  more  to  Christianity 
than  his  life  could  ever  have  been.  Luther  might  easily  have  ar- 
gued that  his  influence  at  Rome    in    favor    of  reform  within  the 


139 

Church  would  have  been  far  more  potent  than  liis  probable  isola- 
tion and  apparently  suicidal  attacks  upon  it.  But  from  the  point  of 
view  of  expediency  he  would  have  made  a  great  mistake.  The  cases 
in  history  of  men  who  bravely  took  the  losing  side  because  it  was 
right  will  occur  to  every  one  of  you,  and  in  looking  back  you  will 
recognize  that  nearly  all  the  great  impulses  toward  better  things 
which  the  world  has  received  have  come  from  this  sort  of  people. 
The  blood  of  the  martyrs  has  been  the  seed  not  only  of  the  Church 
reforms,  but  also  of  all  reforms  in  politics  and  society.  The  fear  of 
consequences  has  been  the  plea  of  the  coward  and  the  time-server, 
and  the  little  gains  that  the  best  of  them  have  made,  even  when 
their  intentions  have  been  good,  do  not  stand  out  in  history. 

I  cannot  now  argue  the  question  as  to  the  abstract  righteousness 
of  war.  For  our  present  purpose  we  will  assume  that  the  answer  is 
in  the  negative.  But  it  will  not  do  simply  to  stop  here.  It  may 
serve  the  individual  conscience  of  him  who  takes  this  view  and  in- 
duce him  to  say  that  for  himself  this  settles  the  whole  question. 
And  so  it  should.  But  he  has  duties  to  others  as  well  as  to  himself, 
and  if  he  desires  to  avert  from  society  the  evil  effects  of  warfare  he 
must  indicate  some  method  of  living  which  will  seem  reasonable  to 
others.  It  is  very  right  that  there  should  be  among  us  those  who 
plant  themselves  firmly  on  the  high  ground  of  principle  and  say, 
"  Come  what  will,  war  is  wrong  and  no  exigencies  can  make  it 
right."  But  there  are  very  few  people,  even  Christian  people,  who 
believe  this.  They  may,  at  some  future  time;  but  I  think  there  is 
some  obligation  upon  ultra-peace  men  to  show  how  far  they  will 
extend  their  principle,  and  under  what  conditions  peace  regulations 
of  society  can  be  enforced. 

We  have  on  one  extreme  the  teachings  of  Tolstoy  and  his  disci- 
ples, who  claim  that  all  resistance  is  wrong,  and  consequently  that 
all  government  is  wrong,  for  government  at  its  best  is  only  a  method 
to  resist  invaders  of  personal  rights.  Hence  the  whole  machinery  of 
police  and  jails  and  courts  of  justice,  and  laws  and  executives  should 
be  abolished,  criminals  should  be  met  only  by  forbearance  and  pas- 
sive resistance,  and  the  great  example  of  universal  love  should  be 
shown  to  the  world,  let  the  consequences  be  what  they  will. 

We  do  not  feel  sure  that  there  is  not  more  in  this  theory  than 
most  people  are  willing  to  admit.  We  have  found  in  our  ordinary 
experiences  that  a  man  who  is  met  in  a  generous  spirit  will  practi- 
cally always  so  respond,  and  that  most  of  the  difficulties  which  come 
to  us  are  the  result  of  deviations  from  absolute  justice  and  kindli- 
ness on  our  own  part.  It  is  probable  that  there  are  men  so  ruthless 
and  imfeeling  as  to  strike  at  the  rights  and  even  the  lives  of  pa- 
tient, generous  and  bravely  suffering  victims,  but  such  people  are, 
I  believe,  much  more  rare  than  we  usually  assume.  In  what  com- 
pany will  not  the  life  and  honor  of  a  helpless  child  be  perfectly 
safe?  How  very  few  there  are  who  would  insult  or  injure  old  age 
or  sickness!     So  we  say  that  every  approach  toward  the  position  of 


140 

Tolstoy,  even  if  that  position  be  in  itself  an  extreme,  is  a  gain  for 
the  world,  which  is  altogether  too  sceptical  of  the  strong  defences 
of  purity  and  righteousness.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  carry  the 
matter  to  this  extreme.  Usually  among  the  so-called  "  peace  men  " 
a  distinction  is  made  between  police  and  military  measures.  The 
one  is  permitted,  the  other  is  reprobated,  and  I  suppose  the  line 
with  most  of  us  would  be  drawn,  not  at  the  denial  of  all  resistance, 
but  at  the  use  of  methods  which  would  be  in  themselves  criminal. 

It  is  probably  a  mistake  to  call  Friends  non-resistants  and  non- 
combatants.  They  have  not  been  so  in  the  past.  In  the  seven- 
teenth century  they  resisted  with  unflinching  courage  and  mighty 
success  the  efforts  to  quench  their  privileges  and  narrow  their  du- 
ties. No  braver  fight  ever  occurred.  They  have  never  had  but  one 
opportunity  to  attempt  to  conduct  the  State  according  to  their  prin- 
ciples, and  that  was  in  early  Pennsylvania,  and  we  must  pause  a  lit- 
tle time  to  find  out  how,  in  this  practical  test,  they  applied  their 
doctrine  of  the  wrongfulness  of  military  measures. 

In  1688  the  colony  was  asked  to  form  a  militia.  The  governor 
appointed  by  Penn  was  an  old  Cromwellian  soldier,  who  urged  it 
upon  the  council,  which  was  largely  Friendly.  After  a  conference 
the  Quaker  members  gave  as  their  decision:  "We  would  not  tie 
others'  hands,  but  we  cannot  act.  We  would  not  take  it  upon  us  to 
hinder  any,  and  we  do  not  think  the  governor  need  call  us  together 
in  the  matter.  We  say  nothing  against  it  and  regard  it  as  a  mat- 
ter of  conscience  to  us."  Not  infrequently  similar  demands  came 
from  the  crown.  The  universal  custom  of  the  Quaker  Assembly 
was  to  throw  the  responsibility  upon  the  non-Quaker  lieutenant- 
governor.  In  the  matter  of  appropriating  money  for  military  ex- 
penses their  practice  was  varied.  In  1709  they  appropriated  £500 
in  response  to  the  promise  of  the  governor  that  it  should  not  be 
"  dipt  in  blood."  Two  years  later  they  made  a  similar  appropria- 
tion without  the  reservation,  and  Isaac  Norris,  a  Friend  minister 
of  high  standing,  defended  it  on  the  ground  that  it  was  simply  a 
supply  for  the  government,  and  the  fact  that  the  government  chose 
to  spend  it  in  war  was  not  a  responsibility  of  theirs. 

When,  as  a  result  of  ill-treatment  of  the  Indians  and  French  in- 
trigue, the  troubles  began  on  the  frontier,  between  1740  and  1750, 
there  were  many  demands  made  upon  the  Quaker  Assembly  for 
money  for  military  purposes.  These,  after  some  haggling  as  to 
terms,  were  generally  voted,  though  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  to  be  applied  never  stated  warlike  expenditure.  In  one  case 
it  was  for  bread,  beef,  pork,  flour,  wheat  and  other  grain.  Frank- 
lin said  that  the  "  other  grain  "  was  construed  to  mean  gun  powder, 
to  which  construction  the  Assembly  appears  to  have  made  no  ob- 
jection. 

A  line  of  forts  stretching  from  Easton  to  the  Maryland  bound- 
ary was  built  with  money  so  expended,  and  several  laws  were  passed 
organizing  a  militia.    In  the  latter  case  it  was  always  provided  that 


141 

no  one  was  to  be  forced  to  perform  military  services.  The  meetings 
were  expected  to  keep  their  own  members  out  of  it.  It  was  a  fa- 
vorite phrase  in  a  law/*  Whereas  this  province  was  settled,  and  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly  have  ever  since  been  of  the  people  called 
Quakers,  who,  though  they  do  not,  as  the  world  is  now  constituted, 
condemn  the  use  of  arms  in  others,  yet  are  principled  against  bear- 
ing arms  themselves,"  etc.,  etc.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
Quaker  policy  through  the  whole  of  the  provincial  days.  They  were 
convinced  of  the  unlawfulness  of  war  for  themselves,  but  did  not  at- 
tempt to  impose  their  principles  upon  others.  After  the  first  ten 
years  Pcnn  and  his  successors  never  appointed  a  Quaker  governor. 
If  they  had  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  province  would  have  been 
governed.  It  may  be  a  question  of  casuistry  whether  a  man  should 
make  it  easy  for  some  one  else  to  do  that  of  which  he  himself  does 
not  approve  provided  the  second  man's  conscience  is  not  troubled. 
But  whether  right  or  wrong,  that  seems  to  have  been  the  consistent 
policy  of  the  Pennsylvania  Friends  in  provincial  days,  and  there  is 
some  justification  for  those  who  say  that  pure  Quaker  principles  are 
not  adapted  to  government,  in  the  policy  of  the  Quakers  themselves 
when  in  power. 

They  thought,  in  1756,  they  must  resign  their  places  in  the  Leg- 
islature. The  executive  branch  of  the  government  had  declared 
war  against  the  Indians,  and  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  wisest 
Friends,  both  in  England  and  America,  that  the  exigencies  of  the 
case  were  such  as  to  demand  the  entire  withdrawal  of  Friends  from 
the  responsibilities  of  government.  This  was  in  itself  a  confession 
of  failure.  They  could  have  remained  in  power  apparently  indefi- 
nitely, so  far  as  the  electors  were  concerned.  In  the  fall  of  1755, 
after  Braddock's  defeat,  and  when  the  Indians  were  ravaging  the 
frontier,  twenty-eight  of  the  thirty-six  members  elected  to  the  As- 
sembly were  Friends.  Their  constituency  evidently  had  faith  in 
their  methods  of  solving  the  difficulty,  and  were  willing  to  try  these 
methods  further. 

So  far  as  I  can  see  this  condition  of  affairs  could  have  lasted  un- 
til the  Revolution,  for  their  political  machine  was  in  excellent  order 
and  they  were  practically  sure  of  re-election.  I  think  that  they  in- 
tended to  resume  their  places  in  the  government  after  the  troubles, 
which  they  believed  would  be  temporary,  should  have  been  over- 
past. But  there  was  continual  rumor  of  war  on  one  side  or  the 
other  for  twenty  years,  and  then  the  great  cataclysm  occurred  which 
ended  their  infiuential  connection  with  the  government.  Whether, 
in  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  they  did  right  in  voluntarily  with- 
drawing is  a  question.  At  any  rate  it  would  have  been  a  more  per- 
fect experiment  in  the  practicability  of  peace  principles  if  they  had 
remained  in  power  as  long  as  they  were  the  honorable  recipients  of 
popular  votes,  and  so  had  shown  whether  or  not  their  theories  were 
available  in  stormy  times.  The  truth  of  the  matter  seems  to  be  that 
the  virtues  must  go  together.    Justice  to  the  Indians  and  French 


142 

and  adjacent  colonists  was  an  indispensable  condition  of  peace.  I 
am  not  at  all  convinced  that  a  Quaker  government  in  America,  in 
1776,  could  not  have  also  solved  the  great  question  of  English  op- 
pression without  a  war,  if  it  had  had  the  opportunity  during  the 
preceding  years,  and  the  eradication  of  slavery  in  the  State  at  the 
time  it  was  abolished  by  the  meetings  might  reasonably  be  supposed 
to  have  obviated  the  necessity  of  our  Civil  War.  If,  therefore, 
peace  is  to  be  practicable  among  nations,  a  large  amount  of  other 
virtues  must  also  exist.  And  until  this  is  possible  we  will  have  to 
admit  that  there  are  limits  to  the  application  of  our  doctrine.  I 
believe  that  both  John  Bright  and  General  Grant  are  credited  with 
the  statement  that  all  wars  of  the  present  century  migh  have  been 
avoided  if  reasonable  and  cool  views  had  prevailed  in  advance.  But 
in  a  great  majority  of  cases  one  side  or  the  other  has  a  desire  to 
fight  for  the  sake  of  fighting. 

We  might,  therefore,  come  to  these  conclusions:  First,  that  it 
is  our  duty  to  fight  for  the  right  and  against  evil,  and  fight  hard,  by 
methods  which  are  not  themselves  wrong.  Second,  that  a  man  or 
a  society  that  believes  war  to  be  wrong  must  keep  out  of  it,  let  the 
consequences  be  what  they  will.  Third,  that  one  cannot  impose  his 
views  upon  others,  who,  with  equal  honesty,  have  come  to  a  differ- 
ent conclusion;  that  he  must  respect  the  motives  which  take  many 
men  into  war,  and  give  them  the  honor  which  their  terrible  self- 
sacrifice  deserves;  for  to  the  man  of  fine  feelings  and  honest  con- 
victions nothing  could  be  more  repellent  than  enduring  the  horrors 
of  battle  and  the  awful  demoralization  of  camp  life  in  place  of  the 
comforts  and  duties  of  home  and  civil  society.  Fourth,  that  as  all 
the  virtues  work  together,  any  one  who  advances  the  cause  of  right- 
eousness in  any  direction  is  a  friend  of  peace,  and  especially  he  who 
shows  a  man  or  a  nation  how  to  practice  forbearance  in  the  face  of 
injury,  and  to  deal  kindly  and  generously  with  an  opponent  is  doing 
his  best  to  remove  the  causes  of  war.  But,  as  these  causes  will  con- 
tinue to  operate,  it  is  our  duty,  by  the  establishment  of  arbitration 
and  other  methods,  to  avert  wars,  even  when  otherwise  they  would 
be  inevitable. 

Upon  these  points  certain  remarks  may  be  made.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  avoid  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  wars  and  warlike  tendencies 
unless  one  goes  to  a  desert  isle  and  lives  by  himself.  Even  if  we 
do  not  join  the  army  we  pay  taxes  for  its  support.  I  do  not  know 
that  any  peace  man  omitted  to  write  checks  after  the  opening  of 
the  Spanish  War  because  stamps  were  necessary  to  make  them  legal, 
and  these  stamps  were  expressly  a  Avar  tax.  Any  one  who  has  read 
the  records  of  Friends  during  the  Eevolutionary  times  knows  how 
difficult  it  was  for  them  to  hold  their  position  of  neutrality  between 
parties  and  of  consistent  opposition  to  everything  that  pertained  to 
war.  Some  drew  the  line  at  personal  service,  some  at  payment  of 
war  taxes,  some  at  handling  the  paper  money  issued  in  support  of 
the  war,  some  at  selling  supplies  to  the  army,  and  some  at  subscrib- 


143 

ing  to  tests  of  allegiance  to  the  government  while  at  war.  The  spirit 
and  results  of  the  war  are  so  inextricably  mingled  with  our  general 
civilization  that  he  who  lives  in  it  must  support  them  inevitably. 
But  w^hile  it  is  difficult  to  draw  the  line  this  much  is  clear,  that  cer- 
tain acts  are  unquestionably  over  the  line,  and  he  who  takes  the 
ground  that  war  is  a  violation  of  the  Christian  moral  law  must 
not  confuse  his  mind  by  arguing  that  it  is  right  for  him  because  the 
cause  is  just,  or  the  consequence  apparently  good,  or  the  necessity 
dire.  For  himself  the  line  of  duty  must  be  marked  out  regardless  of 
where  it  will  lead.  Any  compromise  yields  mental  confusion  and 
gives  away  his  cause. 

But  when  we  come  to  judge  our  fellows  we  have  no  right  to 
place  our  standards  upon  them;  whether  through  education  or  con- 
viction their  consciences  are  different  from  ours.  Many  doubtless 
take  part  in  martial  display  or  actual  warfare  from  love  of  glory,  or 
love  of  adventure,  or  love  of  money,  but  there  is  a  solid  residuum 
w^hich  regards  war  as  an  inevitable  and  at  times  a  justifiable  evil, 
and  takes  it  up  with  reluctance  and  at  a  great  sacrifice.  We  cannot 
fully  judge  of  motives,  but  we  know  that  this  class  contains  a  very 
considerable  number  of  our  fellow  citizens,  and  I  should  be  imvrill- 
ing  to  oppose  any  measures,  like  honest  pensions  or  honors,  which 
a  grateful  nation  would  adopt  to  give  expression  to  its  appreciation 
of  exalted  self-sacrifice.  I  do  not  think  that  we  should  necessarily 
keep  clear  of  flag-raisings  and  other  public  ceremonies  of  this  sort, 
for  the  Stars  and  Stripes  represent  a  great  many  things  in  America 
besides  military  display.  The  flag  stands  for  liberty,  civil  and  re- 
ligious; for  equality;  for  a  democracy  which  is  unquestionably 
stronger  than  in  any  other  nation  of  the  world,  all  Quaker  princi- 
ples of  incalculable  preciousness.  It  stands  for  commerce  and  trade, 
and  in  the  main,  too,  it  stands  for  peace,  for  our  government  has 
done  more  than  any  other  to  advance  this  cause  by  promoting  arbi- 
tration and  by  self-restraint.  We  will  have  to  admit  also  that  splen- 
didly beneficent  results  have  sometimes  followed  a  war,  and  that 
military  heroism  is  not  an  empty  name. 

Seeing,  then,  that  the  success  of  sound  principles  in  practice  is 
to  depend  on  the  education  of  the  community  and  the  removal  of 
causes  which  tend  toward  strife,  we  have  before  us  a  very  practical 
field  of  work.  I  do  not  mean  that  w^e  should  cease  to  point  out  that 
the  spirit  of  war  and  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament  are  contrary 
to  each  other,  and  so  gain  converts  to  strictly  peace  views;  but  we 
must  remember  that  it  is  hard  even  for  us  who  have  looked  at  the 
question  for  years  from  a  peaceful  standpoint  to  understand  just 
what  is  right  in  all  cases.  We  can  give  our  right  hand  of  encour- 
agement to  the  men  who  are  establishing  the  principles  of  arbitra- 
tion between  nations  and  individuals,  and  we  can  oppose  legislative 
actions  which  encourage  martial  feelings  among  boys  in  schools  and 
colleges.  But  we  may  have  to  admit  that  pure  righteousness  can- 
not be  applied;  that  a  strictly  peace  man  could  not  be  President  of 


144 

( 
the  United  States  though  he  might  be  a  policeman  on  our  streets; 
that  we  cannot  explain  to  all  opponents  just  how  our  principles 
would  work  in  the  present  tangled  condition  of  affairs;  indeed,  we 
may  hold  that  they  will  not  work  at  all  in  certain  emergencies,  and 
like  John  Bright  after  the  bombardment  of  Alexandria,  and  the 
Quaker  legislators  in  Pennsylvania  in  1756,  we  will  simply  have  to 
withdraw  them  and  live  quietly  until  better  days  come. 

On  the  other  hand  we  must  have  a  firm  faith  that  they  are  right, 
and,  therefore,  because  right  is  always  strong,  that  they  are  much 
more  capable  of  application  than  the  world  believes  or  we  can  see, 
and  in  this  faith  we  can  keep  our  own  consciences  clear,  and  labor 
hopefully  for  the  slowly  growing  peace  sentiment  to  ripen  its  benefi- 
cent fruitage.  With  our  two  centuries  of  vantage  we  ought  to  de- 
velop the  inspiration  and  the  leaders  of  practical  advances,  and  not 
be  satisfied  simply  with  the  instruction  of  our  own  membership. 

The  Chaieman:  With  your  indulgence  I  will  now  make  use 
of  a  part  of  the  time  which  by  the  program  is  allotted  me,  but 
which  I  did  not  occupy  in  my  opening  remarks,  to  relate  two  cir- 
cumstances which  came  under  my  own  observation  illustrative  of 
the  practicability  of  peace  measures.  Some  of  you  may  remember 
the  great  strike  on  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  which  occurred  some 
twenty  or  more  years  ago.  At  Pittsburg,  where  the  disturbance  ap- 
pears to  have  commenced,  a  very  serious  riot  ensued.  Hundreds  of 
cars  belonging  to  the  railroad  company  were  burned,  and  buildings 
and  other  property  valued  at  millions  of  dollars  were  destroyed. 
The  local  soldiery  were  ordered  out,  and  several  regiments  were 
sent  to  the  scene  of  the  riot  from  other  parts  of  the  State,  and  it 
was  only  after  much  bloodshed  and  loss  of  life  that  the  rioters  were 
overcome  and  peace  restored. 

The  strike  extended  to  Philadelphia.  Here  great  trains  of  cars 
stood  motionless  upon  the  railroad  tracks,  the  fires  were  drawn  from 
under  the  locomotive  boilers,  and  the  angry  strikers  were  gathering 
in  groups  along  the  lines  of  the  road.  The  danger  seemed  immi- 
nent. The  Mayor  of  the  city — William  M.  Stokeley — quietly  and 
privately  called  together  at  his  office  a  select  number  of  business 
men  for  consultation  as  to  what  should  be  done.  ■'  Call  out  the 
military,"  "  Telegraph  the  Governor  for  additional  troops,"  was  the 
advice  of  the  majority.  "  Not  that,"  said  the  Mayor;  "  my  experi- 
ence is  that  the  presence  of  soldiers  under  such  circumstances  only 
excites  the  riotous  spirit  and  provokes  resistance.  Give  me  several 
hundred  additional  policemen  and  assure  me  of  the  money  that  will 
be  required  for  their  pay  and  you  may  hold  me  responsible  for  the 
peace  of  the  city,"  or  words  to  that  effect. 

There  was  no  time  to  be  lost.  The  recommendation  of  the 
Mayor  was  adopted,  the  gentlemen  present  agreeing  to  be  responsi- 
ble for  the  expense  incurred.  The  Mayor  had  in  part  anticipated 
the  action  of  the  citizens  and  had  already  summoned  a  large  addi- 


145 

tion  to  the  regular  police  force,  and  with  some  further  increase  he 
was  able  to  place  men  all  along  the  line  of  the  road  where  violence 
scorned  to  be  most  threatening,  orders  being  given  to  quietly  and 
gently  disperse  the  strikers  wherever  they  appeared  to  be  congre- 
gating and  to  counsel  them  to  return  to  their  homes.  What  was  the 
result"?  Without  the  firing  of  a  gun,  or  the  shedding  of  blood,  or 
the  destruction  of  property,  the  riot  was  prevented  and  the  peace  of 
the  city  preserved,  and  all  this,  mark  you,  without  the  presence  of 
a  soldier. 

Another  instance  let  me  relate,  an  exemplification  of  practical 
disarmament  which  I  met  with  in  a  recent  visit  at  Nassau,  on  one 
of  the  Bahama  Islands.  There  are  four  very  strong  fortifications 
commanding  the  harbor  of  Nassau.  One  of  them,  Fort  Charlotte,  is 
on  a  rocky  height  almost  as  unassailable  as  the  Heights  of  Abraham 
at  Quebec.  But  all  these  forts  are  dismantled.  There  are  many  can- 
non there,  but  they  are  all  spiked,  and  only  bats  now  inhabit  what 
were  once  the  quarters  of  the  soldiers.  There  has  been  no  other 
condition  there  for  nearly  a  third  of  a  century.  There  is  a  fine- 
looking  police  force,  made  up  of  negroes,  but  not  a  soldier  under 
arais  on  the  island;  and  the  inhabitants  suffer  no  hardship  from  the 
lack  of  military  protection.  An  old  woman  put  the  whole  matter 
in  a  nutshell  when  she  queried  of  me,  "  Do  you  ever  hear  of  fight- 
ing men  going  where  there  is  nobody  to  fight?  " 

One  other  circumstance,  not  of  personal  observation,  but  his- 
torical, seems  to  me  quite  worthy  of  mention  in  this  connection. 
Many  of  you  will  remember  that  in  the  war  of  1812  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  there  were  many  very  disastrous  en- 
gagements on  the  lakes  which  separate  the  United  States  from  Can- 
ada. Indeed,  the  naval  fleets  of  both  nations  were  almost  entirely 
destroyed.  I  think  that  it  was  John  Quincy  Adams  who,  after  the 
conclusion  of  peace,  was  first  to  suggest  that  the  great  lakes  should 
be  declared  neutral  waters  on  which  no  war  vessel  of  either  nation 
should  thereafter  be  permitted.  It  was  not  long  after  that,  under 
the  Presidency  of  James  Monroe,  John  Quincy  Adams  being  Secre- 
tary of  State,  this  provision  was  carried  into  effect  by  solemn  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  now  for  more  than 
three-fourths  of  a  century  along  the  coast  lines  of  this  great  chain 
of  lakes  and  upon  the  waters  thereof — an  area  of  even  greater  ex- 
tent than  the  Mediterranean  Sea — the  white-winged  Dove  of  Peace 
has  held  her  unbroken  sway.  Is  not  this  a  notable  example  of  the 
practical  application  of  peace  principles? — an  example  which  other 
nations  may  find  it  wise  and  beneficent  to  follow,  that  thus  there 
may  ultimately  be  brought  about  the  reign  of  peace  throughout  the 
earth. 

The  Chairman:  We  shall  now  have  an  address  on  "William 
Penn's  Peace  Work,"  by  the  President  of  the  Indian  Aid  Associa- 
tion, and  a  member  of  the  Board   of   Indian    Commissioners   ap- 


146 

pointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  Philip  C.  Garrett, 
of  Philadelphia. 

WILLIAM  PENN'S  WORK  FOR  PEACE. 

BY  PHILIP  C.  GARRETT,  PHILADELPHIA. 

Three  prominent  figures  were  chiefly  influential,  during  the  six- 
teenth century,  in  perpetuating  the  life  of  the  Society  of  Friends. 
The  passionate  fervor  of  a  number  of  very  zealous  converts  doubt- 
less added  great  momentum  to  the  movement;  but  these  three  men 
— the  one  as  the  originator  and  organizer,  the  second  as  the  ex- 
pounder of  a  new  and  somewhat  startling  propaganda,  and  the  third 
as  its  practical  exponent,  conserved  and  established  this  revival  of 
pure  primitive  Christianity.  These  remarkable  men  were  George 
Fox,  Robert  Barclay  and  William  Penn. 

The  role  of  William  Penn  was  largely  in  the  line  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty  and  peace,  but  at  all  events  to  illustrate  in  his  own 
Province,  and  also  in  his  citations  from  the  lives  of  devoted  Chris- 
tians in  all  ages,  the  truths  they  all  advocated. 

In  so  far  as  the  Quaker  movement  was  a  peace  movement  there 
was  one  striking  fact  about  the  three.  Two  of  them  were  the  sons 
of  distinguished  warriors.  Penn  had  been  himself  a  soldier,  and 
even  George  Fox  was  bona  fide  oft'ered  a  commission  in  Cromwell's 
army. 

Undoubtedly  they  were  all  men  of  peace;  but  I  would  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  their  antecedents  would  have  made  them  men 
of  war,  and  at  the  outset  it  was  seemingly  not  yet  revealed  to  them 
that  the  inevitable  result  of  accepting  the  Gospel  of  Christ  was  the 
abandonment  of  war.  It  was  not  that  they  did  not  fully  accept  his 
revolt  from  the  Mosaic  law  of  revenge,  "  an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a 
tooth  for  a  tooth  "  ;  only  that  their  thought  had  not  been  forcibly 
directed  to  the  extent  of  the  revolution,  into  which  their  independ- 
ence of  the  later  religious  traditions,  and  reversion  to  the  original 
type,  were  leading  them. 

The  early  Friends  made  no  specialty  of  peace;  they  had  no  pat- 
ent for  it;  they  made  no  aggression  upon  war.  From  the  nature  of 
their  belief  they  were  necessarily  opposed  to  war,  simply  because 
they  sought  to  be  Cbristlike  Christians;  and  it  was  impossible  to 
imagine  their  Divine  leader  in  the  heat  of  battle,  slaughtering  his 
fellow  men  and  the  lilies  of  the  field  incarnadined  by  his  holy  hand. 
It  was  not  conceivable.  And  so  while  they  did  not  attack  war  as 
an  institution  to  be  perfected  by  science  and  machinery,  all  physi- 
cal combat  was  to  them  unallowable. 

So  secondary  a  place  did  Robert  Barclay  assign  to  war  in  his 
Apology,  that  he  introduced  it  last  of  all  subjects,  under  the  sin- 
gular head  of  "  Salutations  and  Recreations."  He  begins  his  ar- 
raignment thus:  "  The  last  thing  to  be  considered  is  revenge  and 
war,  an  evil  as  opposite  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  doctrine  of 


147 

Christ  as  light  to  darkness."  This  is  plainness  of  speech.  In  an- 
other place  he  avers  that  "  it  is  as  easy  to  obscure  the  sun  at  mid- 
day as  to  deny  that  the  primitive  Christians  renounced  all  revenge 
and  war.'' 

We  therefore  see  that  the  early  Church  was  really  as  stalwart  on 
this  subject  as  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  that  Christians  have  sim- 
ply fallen  away  from  the  primitive  faitli  in  this  as  in  many  other 
respects.  Our  call  is  to  call  them  back  in  these  last  days  to  the 
ancient  foundation  upon  which  Christ  builded  his  Church.  But  we 
cannot  forget  that  military  officers  were  referred  to  by  our  Saviour 
without  reprobation  as  belonging  to  an  established  institution 
which  he  himself  did  not  attack  specially.  The  centurion  was  a 
just  man,  and  one  that  feared  God  with  all  his  house. 

George  Fox,  like  his  Master,  made  no  direct  attack  upon  war, 
but  warned  his  followers  when  offered  great  places  and  commands 
in  the  army,  to  "  keep  out  of  the  powers  of  the  earth,  that  run  into 
wars  and  fightings,"  and  "  denied  them  all."  To  those  who  offered 
him  a  captaincy  he  said  that  he  "  lived  in  the  virtue  of  that  life  and 
power  that  took  away  the  occasion  of  all  wars  "  ;  and  he  wrote  to 
Cromwell  that  he  "  denied  the  wearing  or  drawing  of  a  carnal  sword 
or  any  other  outward  weapon  against  him  or  any  other  man,"  and 
that  he  was  "  set  of  God  "  to  bring  people  from  the  causes  of  war 
and  fighting  "  to  the  peaceable  Gospel." 

Robert  Barclay  treated  war  much  in  the  same  vague  way.  War 
as  a  separate  and  concrete  monster  was  reserved  for  the  modem  re- 
former. The  theorists  of  the  seventeenth  century  cultivated  the 
peace  of  God  and  all  its  blessed  fruits.  Fox  and  Barclay  were  the- 
orists. Penn  was  practical,  and,  like  the  reformers  of  the  twen- 
tieth century,  would  abolish  wars.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  two 
attitudes.  Even  Penn,  though  grappling  with  the  subject  in  a  more 
personal  and  concrete  way,  held  somewhat  aloof  from  our  modem 
ultraism. 

The  comments  of  George  Fox  on  the  suggestion  that  he  himself 
serve  in  Cromwell's  army  sound  rather  like  the  words  of  one  who 
has  other  work  to  do  and  another  mission  to  perform,  than  those  of 
one  to  whom  this  method  of  settling  scores  was  abhorrent  per  se. 
So  his  well-known  saying  to  his  courtier  friend,  when  consulted  as 
to  wearing  a  sword,  "  Wear  it  as  long  as  thou  canst,"  was  not  the 
utterance  of  a  man  who  was  abhorring  the  institution  of  war,  but 
of  an  apostle  of  the  inner  light,  of  a  prophet  who  pointed  every 
Christian  to  the  teacher  within  the  soul,  of  the  Baptist  who  called 
men  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  as  the  only  true  baptism.  Indeed, 
these  inspired  men  had  not  yet  come  to  facing  the  specific  evils  of 
war  and  slavery,  but  were  still  combating  the  spirit  that  led  to  all 
such  evils.  The  true  Christian  divinity,  until  now,  needed  an  apolo- 
gist. Men  were  imprisoned  and  beaten  for  believing  in  it,  not  with- 
standing Christ's  own  assurance  that  "  he  that  speaketh  a  word 


148 

against  the  Holy  Ghost  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in 
this  world  nor  in  the  world  to  come." 

In  the  first  century  of  Quakerism,  then,  war  was  not  regarded 
as  a  distinct  science,  or  an  institution  to  be  condemned  or  con- 
doned, but  simply  as  the  natural  expression  of  man's  evil  nature. 

William  Penn,  however,  through  the  unique  opportunity  af- 
orded  him  by  the  debt  of  the  Stuart  king  to  his  father,  the  admiral, 
God  having  put  it  into  his  mind  to  "  beat  this  spear  into  a  pruning 
hook,"  and  seize  this  chance  to  establish  a  model  government,  was 
brought  into  more  direct  and  effective  contact  with  government  and 
war  than  his  coadjutors.  Fox  and  Barclay;  and  it  thus  happens  that 
the  most  perfect  opportunity  in  history — the  most  perfect  possible 
— fell  into  the  hands  of  a  Quaker: — the  opportunityto  demonstrate, 
as  a  ruler,  the  entire  practicability  of  conducting  government  with- 
out war. 

Not  only  so,  but  the  situation  into  which  the  providence  of 
God  introduced  him  threw  him  into  circumstances  the  most  diffi- 
cult for  the  preservation  of  peace,  and  therefore  the  most  conclu- 
sive, when  the  experiment  proved  successful;  for  he  was  brought 
face  to  face — not  with  civilized  and  Christian  nations,  but  with 
painted  savages,  who  had  never  yet  heard  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  It 
was  in  the  midst  of  these  that  he  showed  government  could  be  con- 
ducted without  one  drop  of  blood  being  shed. 

Amid  difficult  negotiations,  questions  of  intrusion  on  their  ter- 
ritory, and  of  purchase  and  sale  of  it,  with  people  of  antipodal  cus- 
toms, Penn  contrived  to  live  on  terms  of  perfect  justice,  in  amity 
and  mutual  esteem  with  the  native  redskins.  His  neighbors,  the 
other  English  colonies,  were  in  nightly  fear  of  torch  and  tomahawk. 
And  yet,  for  two  generations,  a  province  capable  of  containing  ten 
million  souls  was  governed  with  conspicuous  success  without  sol- 
diery. The  experiment  well  called  "  holy  "  lasted  well  nigh  a  cen- 
tury— a  full  generation  after  the  death  of  its  author, — endured  un- 
til the  peace-loving  Friends  were  ousted  from  the  government  of 
Pennsylvania,  and,  but  for  that,  might  have  continued  to  this  day. 

But  although,  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, the  Scotch-Irish  and  more  combative  element  of  the  popula- 
tion obtained  the  mastery  of  Pennsylvania,  the  colossal  statue  of  its 
Quaker  founder,  surmounting  the  dome  of  the  metropolis,  attests 
the  pride  of  her  people  in  her  founder,  and  her  belief  in  his  unri- 
valed statesmanship.  In  this  twentieth  century  the  plant  that  his 
right  hand  planted  is  blossoming  out  into  a  world-bloom.  The  suc- 
cess of  the  demonstration  cannot  be  gainsaid.  No  completer  proof 
is  practicable  than  that  made  by  William  Penn  of  the  entire  feasi- 
bility of  maintaining  a  nation  without  arms,  and  this  perfect  experi- 
ment stands  out  unchallenged  and  shines  as  a  beacon  light  from 
the  seventeenth  century  to  the  twentieth  that  needs  not  to  be  re- 
lit. A  nation  can  be,  for  a  nation  has  been,  conducted  without  arms 
for  three-quarters  of  a  century.     On  one  occasion  Lord  Baltimore 


149 

tried  to  make  war  upon  the  colony,  and  sent  an  army  from  the 
south,  but  his  lordship  discovered  that  it  required  two  to  make  a 
quarrel.  He  found  no  one  to  fight,  and  so  marched  back  again,  and 
the  boundary  was  subsequently  settled  in  peace  by  Mason  and 
Dixon,  for  this  invasion  was  on  account  of  a  boundary  dispute, 
which  is  a  frequent  cause  of  war. 

Fiske  attempts  to  belittle  the  experiment  of  Pennsylvania,  as- 
cribing the  seventy  years'  peace,  not  to  Penn's  efforts  to  maintain 
it  by  justice  and  conciliation,  but  to  what  he  calls  "  Indian  poli- 
tics." It  is  clear  to  me  that  Fiske  is  mistaken,  and  that  in  other 
hands  than  Penn's  the  colony  would  have  been  an  Aceldama,  like 
those  further  East.  Fiske  did  not  know  how  complete  was  the 
goodwill  between  Onas  and  the  Indians,  nor  was  he  apparently 
aware  that  other  Friends  beside  Penn  traveled  north  and  south 
through  the  wilderness,  among  the  most  dangerous  aborigines,  un- 
molested and  welcomed.  They  were  welcomed  because  without 
guile  or  selfishness  they  were  full  of  love,  and  love  begets  love.  The 
shrewd  and  penetrating  sons  of  nature  would  not  harm  them,  and 
in  their  presence  the  tomahawk  slumbered. 

The  New  England  colonists  could  not  live  at  peace  with  the  red 
men,  because  they  themselves  were  quick  to  provocation  and 
prompt  to  arm. 

After  Penn's  return  to  England  his  deep  interest  in  the  great 
cause  that  had  so  much  engrossed  his  thoughts  was  undiminished, 
and  in  his  retirement  from  society  and  the  world  he  still  devoted  his 
pen  to  the  cause  of  his  divine  Master.  Ten  years  after  the  colony 
was  launched  on  its  voyage  of  demonstration  he  gave  forth  this 
second  memorable  contribution  toward  the  permanent  peace  of  the 
civilized  world.  The  lurid  clouds  that  veiled  the  sunset  of  his  life 
had  begun  to  gather  around  his  head.  His  enemies  had  temporar- 
ily wrested  from  him  his  province;  they  had  smirched  his  irre- 
proachable character  with  false  charges  of  treason  on  account  of  his 
friendship  with  King  James,  and  he  was  in  involuntary  retirement. 
It  was  at  the  time  that  he  wrote  his  beautiful  "  Fruits  of  Solitude." 
It  was  then  that  he  extended  his  thoughts  of  peace  beyond  the  lim- 
its of  Sylvania  to  the  federation  of  man,  and  wrote  his  Essay  for  the 
Present  and  Future  Peace  of  Europe. 

The  scheme  was  a  great  one,  greater  in  its  practical  than  in  its 
theoretical  or  Quakerly  characterization;  and  it  was  greater  as  com- 
ing from  the  same  factory  as  the  conclusive  experiment  in  Pennsyl- 
vania which  was  now  well  under  way.  The  mind  that  gave  forth 
this  essay  was  the  same  which  inaugurated  and  ultimately  perfected 
this  divine  demonstration.  It  was  therefore  authoritative  on  the 
subject  of  international  peace.  Penn's  voice  was  a  voice  to  be  heard 
on  this  subject;  and  it  would  have  been  heard  if  the  world's  ears 
had  been  open.  But  "  men  love  darkness  rather  than  light  because 
their  deeds  are  evil,"  and  with  the  carnal  ear  they  love  the  confused 
noise  of  battle  rather  than  the  "  still,  small  voice." 


150 

It  was  not  in  the  irony  of  fate,  but  in  the  ordering  of  an  all- 
seeing  Providence  that  William  Penn  was  the  offspring  of  a  distin- 
guished admiral  in  the  British  navy,  who  was  invested  with  knight- 
hood for  his  services  in  war.  This  courageous  advocate  of  peace 
was  himself  a  warrior  in  his  youth,  but  changed.  "  Out  of  the 
strong  came  forth  sweetness."  The  evolution  was  not  a  sudden  one. 
The  familiar  portrait  in  armor,  which  his  grandson,  Granville  Penn, 
says  is  the  only  portrait  ever  painted  of  him,  truthfully  represents 
him  as  a  soldier.  "  His  spirit,"  wrote  Granville  Penn,  in  his  memoir 
of  Admiral  Sir  William  Penn,  "  was  high  and  enterprizing;  and  the 
forwardness  he  displayed  on  the  occasion  of  a  mutiny  of  the  sol- 
diers in  the  castle  of  Carrickfergus,  induced  the  Duke  of  Ormond 
to  think  of  giving  him  the  active  command  of  the  company  of  foot 
attached  to  his  father's  government  of  the  fort  of  Kinsale."  His 
father's  objection  perhaps  saved  him  from  a  military  career. 

He  had  already  been  deeply  impressed  by  the  preaching  of 
Thomas  Loe,  who,  like  himself,  had  been  an  Oxford  man,  and  with- 
in the  next  year  after  the  affair  at  Carrickfergus  he  was  irresistibly 
drawn  to  attend  another  "  conventicle  "  where  the  same  Friend 
again  preached.  For  thus  participating  in  a  "  tumultuous  assem- 
bly," so  called,  he  was  cast  into  prison.  And  thus  began  a  faithful 
service  in  the  Lamb's  army,  which  lasted  to  the  end  of  his  days. 

Three  years  later  his  father,  the  admiral,  died,  and  his  filial  son 
thus  gently  refers  to  his  profession  of  arms:  "  How  far  he  was  a 
master  of  his  art,  both  as  a  general  and  a  seaman,  I  leave  to  the  ob- 
servation of  his  friends,  his  own  constant  success,  and  what  here- 
after may  come  to  public  view  of  his  remarks." 

Love  and  admiration  for  his  father  may  account  for  this  tepid 
reference  to  the  military  art,  but  to  a  certain  extent  it  pervaded  his 
view  of  the  subject.  This  was  on  the  courtier  side  of  his  character. 
In  his  opposition  to  war  he  was  hardly  an  extremist;  or  perhaps  I 
should  say  more  accurately,  was  not  violent.  He  had  the  inclina- 
tion of  the  practical  statesman  to  see  all  sides  of  a  question.  He  ap- 
proved to  a  certain  extent  of  the  use  of  force,  of  police,  for  example. 

And  when  we  now  come  to  deal  with  his  scheme  for  the  peace  of 
Europe,  we  shall  find  that  it  contains  features  which  Friends  of  the 
present  day  would  regard  as  inadmissible.  The  essay  is  too  long  for 
the  limits  of  this  occasion,  and  much  of  it  is  occupied  by  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  plan.  It  is  only  needful  to  refer  to  two  sec- 
tions, which  contain  the  kernel  of  it.  The  author  intimates  that 
it  was  suggested  by  the  design  of  Henry  IV.  of  France,  or  of  his 
Minister,  Sully,  to  bring  about  by  force,  or  forceful  diplomacy,  a 
somewhat  similar  union  of  the  European  States  to  which  each 
should  contribute  its  appropriate  quota  of  a  common  armament. 
The  main  feature  of  the  essay  was  an  imperial  Diet,  or  Parliament, 
which  was  to  sit  once  in  one,  two  or  three  years,  before  which  sov- 
ereign assembly  should  be  brought  all  differences  depending  be- 


151 

tween  one  sovereign  and  another  that  cannot  be  made  up  by  private 
embassies  before  the  session  begins. 

The  Diet  was  to  represent  the  nations  of  Europe,  and  he  pro- 
ceeds to  particularize  by  naming  the  number  of  representatives  from 
each  nation.  There  were  only  six  from  England,  while  Germany 
was  assigned  twelve,  France  ten,  Spain  ten,  and  Italy  eight,  all  more 
than  England,  which  shows  the  changes  time  has  wrought  in  the 
relative  importance  of  these  powers.  He  goes  on  to  say:  "  And  if 
the  Turks  and  Muscovites  are  taken  in,  as  seems  but  fit  and  just, 
they  will  make  ten  apiece  more."  "  Sweedland  "  and  Poland  were 
each  to  have  four,  although  the  half-barbarous  Muscovites  have 
swallowed  or  partitioned  the  latter  out  of  existence  since. 

The  remarkable  feature  of  the  scheme  is  found  in  the  following 
lines,  which  sound  somewhat  warlike:  "  If  any  of  the  sovereignties 
that  constitute  these  imperial  states  shall  refuse  to  submit  their 
claim  or  pretentions  to  them,  or  to  abide  and  perform  the  judgment 
thereof,  and  seek  their  remedy  by  arms,  or  delay  their  compliance 
beyond  the  time  prefixed  by  their  resolutions,  all  the  other  sov- 
ereignties, united  as  one  strength,  shall  compel  the  submission  and 
performance  of  the  sentence,  with  damages  to  the  suffering  party, 
and  charges  to  the  sovereignties  that  obliged  their  submission." 

He  somewhat  naively  adds:  "  To  be  sure  Europe  would  quickly 
obtain  the  so  much  desired  and  needed  peace  to  her  harassed  inhabi- 
tants; and  consequently  p«ace  would  be  secured  and  confirmed  in 
Europe."  Although  the  last  paragraph  smacks  of  "  practical  poli- 
tics," possibly  somewhat  too  much,  we  must  allow  for  the  age  in 
which  the  writer  lived,  and  admit  that  he  is  far  in  advance  of  that 
age.  If  Penn  had  been  more  powerful,  perhaps  if  it  had  not  been 
for  Ravaillac's  dagger,  Europe  might  have  been  as  far  advanced  in 
the  direction  of  peace  in  1700  as  it  has  been  brought  at  the  House 
in  the  Wood  in  1900. 

It  is  remarkable  that  this  scheme,  which  is  worthy  of  The 
Hague  Conference,  and  is  one  of  the  most  statesmanlike  and  feasi- 
ble propositions  ever  emanating  from  a  potential  source,  has  not 
attracted  more  notice  than  it  has,  especially  that  it  did  not  receive 
more  attention  with  Henry  IV.'s  endorsement  than  it  appears  to 
have  received,  from  the  publicists  of  that  period.  I  believe  that 
even  William  Ladd,  the  so-called  Apostle  of  Peace,  did  not  men- 
tion it  in  his  prize  essay  (published  about  1840)  on  a  "  Congress  of 
Nations."  Clarkson  refers  to  it  briefly;  so  does  Janney;  but  Hep- 
worth  Dixon  seems  to  be  the  only  biographer  who  has  discovered 
that  the  plan  "  attracted  much  attention  at  the  time."  I  have  not 
found  any  reference  to  it  in  the  English  histories.  It  may  be  rather 
presumptuous  to  claim  for  William  Penn  a  potential  position  at 
the  time  this  essay  was  published.  It  was  written  when  he  was 
much  under  a  cloud,  indeed  when  he  was  actually  a  prisoner  under 
surveillance  in  his  own  lodgings,  on  account  of  Fuller's  charge  of 
treasonable  conspiracy  to  seat  on  the  throne  one  of  the  pretenders. 


152 

Penn  was  finally  heard  and  acquitted  by  the  King  himself;  but  he 
was  scarcely  in  a  position  to  give  him  much  influence  at  the  time. 

I  can  only  briefly  revert  to  the  third  unique  lesson  taught  by 
William  Penn  on  the  subject  of  peace  and  war.  It  is  regarded  as 
vital,  even  to  a  nation  peaceably  disposed,  that  it  should  maintain 
an  army  for  defence,  in  case  of  an  attack  from  without.  But  I 
have  already  referred  to  the  originality  of  the  reception  of  Lord 
Baltimore's  invasion.  There  was  no  beating  of  drums  and  sum- 
moning of  minute  men  by  William  Penn's  forces,  no  defending  of 
bridges  with  muskets,  no  ambushes,  no  panic. 

The  slumbering  country  disarmed  the  invaders,  who  were  met 
by  grazing  herds  beside  the  still  waters,  against  which  their  arms 
were  valueless;  and  thus  Penn  proved  the  fallacy  of  the  above 
common  assumption,  and  the  futility  of  armies  for  defence. 

Has  he  not  demonstrated  three  great  facts? — First,  that  a  coun- 
try can  be  ruled  without  war;  second,  that  Europe  may  safely  re- 
duce her  armaments  by  uniting  in  a  Diet  and  pooling  her  forces, 
and,  third,  that  armies  are  not  necessary  for  defence. 

Alas!  that  the  sun  of  this  glorious  man  should  have  set  in 
gloomy  clouds;  but  few  have  left  behind  them  grander  memories 
of  duty  done,  of  seed  sown,  and  promise  of  golden  fruitage,  with 
earnest  of  perfection. 

In  our  estimate  of  the  contributions  of  William  Penn  to  the 
long  movement  against  the  hydra-headed  monster,  war,  we  may 
safely  rank  them  high  on  the  roll  of  historic  accomplishments. 
Probably  no  other  man  has  evolved  from  his  laboratory  more  prac- 
tical and  conclusive  proofs,  either  of  the  advantage  of  abandoning 
war  or  of  its  feasibility.  But  his  glory  is  of  a  kind  that  seeks  no 
blazoned  heraldry  nor  lofty  monument;  better  the  simple  white 
stone  at  Jordan's. 

The  Chaikman:  "The  Present  Position  of  the  International 
Peace  Movement "  will  now  be  presented  to  us  in  an  address  by  Dr. 
Benjamin  F.  Trueblood,  of  Boston.  Dr.  Trueblood  is  well  known 
to  you  all  as  the  Secretary  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

THE  PEESENT  POSITION  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL 
PEACE  MOVEMENT.       . 

BY  BENJAMIN  F.   TRUEBLOOD,  BOSTON. 

Eemarkable  changes  have  taken  place  in  the  world  in  respect  to 
war  since  George  Fox  first  "  saw  "  and  was  "  taken  up  in  the  love 
of  God,"  became  an  "  heir  of  the  gospel  of  peace,"  was  "  brought  off 
from  outward  wars,"  and  began  the  great  gospel  peace  testimony 
of  which  the  whole  Christian  world  has  learned. 

In  order  to  be  able  to  utter  the  old  message  of  the  gospel  of 
peace  with  freshness  and  power  in  our  time  as  he  declared  it  in  his, 


153 

we  must  know  where  we  are,  what  are  the  conditions  around  U3, 
what  conquests  of  peace  have  already  been  made,  and  where  and 
how  the  spirit  of  war  still  lies  entrenched  and  unsubdued.  Sev- 
enteenth century  methods  will  not  do  now.  We  are  facing  the  de- 
mands of  a  new  time,  and  we  should  give  all  diligence  to  under- 
stand its  behests. 

George  Fox  did  no  specialized  peace  work.  The  time  was  not 
ripe  for  it.  It  was  against  war  as  such,  the  sum  total  of  its  spirit 
and  deeds,  that  he  let  go  his  broadsides  of  gospel  truth  and  ex- 
perience. Peace  sentiment  had  to  be  made,  for  as  yet  there  was 
none.  That  was  largely  the  task  of  his  day.  With  the  system  of 
war,  as  a  political  institution,  he  did  not  attempt  to  deal. 

At  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  war  was  substantially 
perpetual.  It  raged  continuously.  No  practical  means  of  arrest- 
ing it  was  then  possible  of  realization.  Men  did  not  wish  it  ar- 
rested. The  only  thing  that  had  been  accomplished  toward  its 
diminution  was  the  disappearance  in  considerable  measure  of  pri- 
vate war,  whose  brutalities  had  tilled  the  Middle  Ages.  Not  even 
this  would  have  gone  had  there  not  been  plenty  of  fighting  in  other 
forms.  The  so-called  humanizing  of  war,  the  lopping  off.  that  is, 
of  some  of  its  incidental  cruelties  and  sufferings,  had  only  just  be- 
gun, through  the  influence  of  Grotius.  Nothing  had  been  done 
toward  lessening  the  practice  of  duelling.  International  war  was 
not  more  prevalent  than  civil  war,  which  raged  everywhere  and 
kept  every  country  of  Europe  distracted  and  laid  waste  with  fire 
and  sword.  George  Fox  himself,  after  his  majority,  lived  through 
three  civil  wars,  one  of  which  lasted  nine  years. 

But  now,  after  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  how  different  the 
circumstances!  Christianity,  education,  commercial  development, 
progress  in  science,  in  economic  knowledge,  in  political  institutions, 
in  modes  of  communication  and  travel,  have  wrought  marvelous 
changes.  Private  war  is  no  longer  heard  of.  Few  people  now 
know  what  it  was.  The  duel,  as  a  serious  life-and-death  encounter, 
has  disappeared  in  large  measure  from  civilized  countries.  Civil 
war  has  practically  passed  away  in  what  we  call  Christendom,  with 
the  exception  of  parts  of  Latin  America,  where  it  remains  as  a 
savage  sort  of  spectacular  social  distraction.  Races  and  peoples  oc- 
cupying the  same  territories  have  ceased  fighting  and  been  com- 
pacted in  various  ways  into  settled  nationalities,  within  which  so- 
cial order  reigns  and  the  institutions  of  law  dispose  of  what  few 
quarrels  still  remain.  Large  sections  of  human  society  and  great 
areas  of  territory  have  thus  been  brought  into  what  is  practically 
perpetual  peace.  Only  international  wars  and  those  for  territorial 
or  commercial  expansion  still  remain.  Even  these  are  much  less 
frequent  than  formerly. 

If  peacemakers  are  to  do  their  work  intelligently  in  our  time 
and  not  waste  their  strength  beating  the  air,  they  must  acquaint 
themselves  with  the  facts  of  this  large  elimination  of  war  already 


154 

accomplished  and  not  paint  the  world  any  longer  in  seventeenth 
century  colors.  Recognition  of  the  remarkable  gain  which  has 
been  made  gives  strong  practical  ground  for  insisting  that  inter- 
national and  colonial  wars  also  may  just  as  easily  be  abolished,  and 
that  it  is  no  credit  to  either  the  intelligence  or  the  moral  char- 
acter of  the  civihzed  powers  that  such  wars  have  not  already  been 
made  impossible. 

Since  the  seventeenth  century  the  development  of  peace  senti- 
ment and  its  organization  have  been  no  less  remarkable  than  the 
decline  of  war.  The  two  have  been,  in  fact,  different  sides  of  the 
same  movement;  for  it  is  impossible  that  war  should  have  declined 
unless  there  had  been  a  sentiment  against  it,  expressing  itself  effect- 
ively in  one  way  or  another. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  and  even  in  the  eighteenth,  there 
was  no  organized,  co-operative  peace  work,  unless  we  call  that  of 
the  Friends  co-operative.  There  were  not  enough  workers  at  any 
given  time  to  co-operate.  Henry  IV.,  Cruce,  Grotius,  George  Fox, 
Rheinf  els,  William  Penn,  and  in  the  next  century,  St.  Pierre,  Locke, 
Leibnitz,  Montesquieu,  Condorcet,  Turgot,  Rousseau,  Adam  Smith, 
Lessing,  Herder,  Bentham,  Kant,  did  their  work  each  in  his  own 
way  and  practically  alone.  These  were  great  men,  and,  with  their 
philosophic  plans  of  perpetual  peace,  they  made  a  great  record, 
but  no  popular  movement  gathered  about  them.  To-day,  such  has 
been  the  transformation  of  sentiment  that  there  are  now  no  less 
than  four  hundred  and  fifty  peace  associations,  each  with  a  mem- 
bership of  scores,  hundreds  or  thousands,  doing  their  work  with- 
out intermission  in  many  countries.  They  count  among  their  ad- 
herents numbers  of  the  most  capable  men  living.  But  these  so- 
cieties do  not  represent  a  thousandth  part  of  the  sentiment  which 
is  now  for  peace,  some  of  it  working  effectually  in  other  organiza- 
tions, and  some  of  it  lying  around  loose  and  going  to  waste. 

There  are  now  regular  international  peace  congresses,  un- 
dreamed of  even  a  century  ago,  national  and  local  arbitration  con- 
ferences, a  great  peace  union  of  many  hundreds  of  members  of  the 
national  parliaments,  a  pei  manent  internat:ional  peace  bureau,  an 
international  law  association  of  distinguished  jurists  and  publicists 
working  for  arbitration  and  other  means  of  promoting  more  am- 
icable relations  between  nations.  There  are  also  distinguished 
specialists  like  John  de  Bloch  devoting  their  time  and  their  fortune 
to  the  destruction  of  war  and  its  implements,  and  eminent  authors, 
read  all  round  the  world,  bringing  war  rapidly  under  the  ban  of 
literature. 

Thus  peace  sentiment  has  not  only  developed  very  greatly,  but 
has  also  reached  a  state  of  powerful  and  permanent  organization. 
Of  this  fact  every  friend  of  peace  ought  to  inform  himself,  to  ac- 
quaint himself  with  the  history  of  the  movement,  and  in  some  way 
to  connect  himself  permanently  mth  it.  To  attempt  to  do  peace 
work  single  handed  and  alone  in  our  day,  without  co-operating 


155 

with  the  body  of  organized  laborers,  is  as  serious  a  mistake  as  if  one 
should  attempt  single  handed  to  build  his  own  house,  gather  his 
food  and  clothe  himself.  It  is  a  bit  of  saintly  ignorance  or  ego- 
tism of  which  too  many  sincere  friends  of  the  cause  are  guilty.  In- 
dividual work,  which  everybody  ought  to  find,  and  even  the  work  of 
particular  societies,  can  be  most  effectually  done  when  it  is  done 
in  fellowship  with  the  work  of  others. 

Since  the  days  of  Grotius  and  George  Fox  international  asso- 
ciation, then  little  known  except  in  matters  of  war,  has  devel- 
oped marvelously  in  all  sorts  of  peaceful  ways.  Travel,  trade, 
swift  communication  by  ship  and  wire,  the  intermingling  of  peo- 
ples and  races,  treaties  and  conventions  for  various  common  inter- 
ests like  the  Postal  Union,  into  which  every  organized  government 
in  the  world  has  entered,  have  made  the  world  already  one  neigh- 
borhood, have  awakened  a  wide  sense  of  brotherhood,  and  con- 
tributed immensely  to  the  promotion  of  general  peace.  The  pres- 
ent status  of  international  relations  in  these  matters  is  a  much 
better  gauge  of  the  gain  which  peace  has  made  than  the  sum  of 
all  the  peace  associations  organized  or  peace  and  arbitration  con- 
ferences held,  important  as  these  are  as  agencies.  These  associa- 
tions and  conferences  are  simply  the  prophetic  scouts  of  the  great 
societary  movement  which  is  coming  steadily  and  irresistibly  on. 

No  less  remarkable  has  been  the  progress  since  the  seventeenth 
century  in  the  application  of  pacific  methods  in  the  settlement  of 
disputes  between  nations.  The  need  of  such  methods  began  to 
take  deep  hold  of  men's  minds  from  the  beginning  of  that  century. 
Henry  IV.,  in  the  very  dawn  of  the  century,  advocated,  as  is  well 
known,  a  federation  of  Christian  Europe.  Grotius,  in  1625,  pleaded 
with  the  Christian  rulers  to  employ  arbitration  instead  of  such  in- 
cessant and  ruinous  fighting.  Cruce,  in  1623,  deeply  affected  by  the 
continual  shedding  of  blood  for  the  most  trifling  causes,  and  by 
the  consequent  ruin  of  commerce,  advanced  a  project  for  an  inter- 
national tribunal,  the  first  known  to  have  been  made.  Hesse- 
Eheinfels,  in  1666,  proposed  a  "  society  of  sovereigns "  for  pre- 
venting war.  Pufendorf.  six  years  later,  in  his  "  Law  of  Xature 
and  of  Nations,"  advanced  a  similar  scheme.  William  Penn,  in 
1693,  worked  out  his  famous  plan  for  a  diet  or  parliament  of  na- 
tions. Early  in  the  eighteenth  century  Saint  Pierre,  following  up 
the  work  of  his  predecessors,  elaborated  in  great  detail  a  design  for 
perpetual  peace.  In  1758  Vattel,  the  distinguished  Swiss  jurist, 
again  brought  forward  a  project  of  arbitration.  Toward  the  close 
of  the  century  Bentham,  in  England,  pleaded  for  a  European  fra- 
ternity in  the  form  of  a  common  tribunal;  and  Kant,  in  Germany, 
advanced  the  bold  idea  of  an  international  state  through  the  pro- 
cess of  federation. 

These  plans  of  perpetual  peace  or  projects  for  the  prevention  of 
war  were  the  highwater  mark  of  political  and  humanitarian  think- 
ing when  the  nineteenth  century  opened.     During  that  century. 


156 

just  closed,  we  see  the  principle  of  arbitration,  over  which  these 
great  minds  had  been  working,  gradually  blossom  out  in  practice, 
like  a  magnificent  century  plant.  Plans  for  a  cong.'ess  and  court 
of  nations  continued  to  be  put  forward  by  men  of  the  highest  rank 
— John  Stuart  Mill,  William  Ladd,  David  Dudley  Field,  Bluntschli, 
Leone  Levi,  Professor  Corsi,  Lemonnier,  Hornby,  and  others;  by 
the  Peace  Congress,  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  the  Interna- 
tional Law  Association,  by  bar  associations  and  by  distinguished 
government  ministers.  But,  while  this  work  was  going  on,  the 
governments  themselves  fell  under  the  influence  of  the  rising  tide 
of  opinion  and  took  to  arbitrating  their  controversies. 

During  the  century  just  closed  nearly  one  hundred  temporary 
tribunals  and  arbitral  commissions  were  established  for  the  adjust- 
ment of  disputes,  some  of  them  disposing  of  several  cases.  In  the 
second  decade  of  the  century  three  cases  were  thus  adjusted.  In 
the  third  decade  five.  By  the  end  of  the  century  so  common  had 
become  the  practice  of  arbitrating  disputes  between  nations  that  the 
number  of  cases  had  run  up  to  just  under  two  hundred.  More  than 
sixty  of  these  were  in  the  decade  just  closed,  or  an  average  of  over 
six  per  year  for  the  whole  ten  years;  and  the  nations  participating 
in  them  number  thirty-seven.  This  is  a  record  of  extraordinary 
historical  significance,  and  yet  so  little  is  it  appreciated  or  even 
known  that  it  has  foimd  its  way  into  not  a  single  well-known  book 
of  history,  the  most  of  it  into  none  at  all. 

While  these  arbitrations  were  taking  place,  the  movement  for 
a  permanent  international  tribunal,  which  began  to  take  definite 
shape  in  the  first  half  of  the  century,  developed  to  such  an  extent 
that  it  became  the  chief  feature  of  the  entire  peace  movement  in 
the  decade  from  which  we  have  just  passed.  It  was  supported  by 
all  the  peace  organizations,  by  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  the 
International  Law  Association,  by  bar  associations,  by  the  great 
organizations  of  women,  by  social  clubs  and  religious  unions,  by 
influential  sections  of  the  press,  by  legislators  and  diplomats,  by 
parliaments,  and  at  last  by  presidents,  kings  and  emperors.  It  grew 
in  its  last  stages  into  a  veritable  crusade  of  great  extent  and  power. 

Out  of  these  three  long  centuries  of  peace  thinking  and  plan- 
ning, of  organized  peace  effort  and  the  practice  of  arbitration  by 
governments  came  the  Hague  Conference  and  the  setting  up  of  the 
Permanent  International  Court  of  Arbitration.  This  august  in- 
stitution, in  which  nineteen  powers,  practically  the  whole  civilized 
world,  are  already  represented,  formally  declared  open  on  the  9th 
of  April  last,  was  not  the  work  of  the  Czar  of  Eussia,  nor  of  any 
knightly  crusader,  nor  of  any  bar  association  or  particular  organiza- 
tion. Nicholas  II.  was  the  providential  instrument  of  calling  the 
Conference.  He  did  his  great  deed  at  the  right  time  and  in  the 
right  way.  But  when  the  Conference  met,  with  three  whole  cen- 
turies of  momentum  behind  it,  it  |froceeded  to  do  the  work  which 


157 

those  centuries  had  prepared  for  it,  as  if  the  Czar  of  Russia  had 
never  been  born. 

The  Hague  Court,  now  only  just  eight  months  old,  has  not 
yet  done  any  business  (the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
did  no  actual  work  for  two  years  and  a  half),  but  it  is  itself  the 
grandest  piece  of  business  in  a  political  way  that  has  ever  been 
done.  It  is  not  a  failure  from  the  fact  that  it  has  not  yet  had  op- 
portunity to  do  anything.  It  never  can  be  a  failure,  however  it 
may  have  to  be  supplemented  or  even  superseded  by  something 
more  perfect.  The  Pan-American  treaty  of  1890,  never  ratified, 
was  not  a  failure.  The  Anglo-American  treaty  of  1897,  rejected 
by  the  Senate,  was  not  a  failure.  The  Italo-Argentine  treaty  of  the 
same  year,  never  formallv  adopted, it  seems, was  not  a  faih.re.  N'oth- 
ing  done  in  the  historic  development  of  a  great  principle  is  ever  a 
failure.  The  peace  movement  which  has  such  a  splendid  history  of 
three  centuries  behind  it — to  go  no  farther  back — and  of  which 
the  Permanent  Arbitration  Court  is  the  consummate  present  ex- 
pression, has  yet  wider  sweeps  of  triumph  before  it.  Of  the  appear- 
ance of  these  when  the  time  has  ripened,  through  the  workings  of 
the  Divine  Providence  and  the  faithful  efforts  of  the  friends  of  the 
cause,  no  one  who  believes  in  the  omnipotence  of  God,  of  truth  and 
of  love,  will  have  the  least  doubt. 

It  seems,  at  first  view,  an  incomprehensible  anomaly  that,  while 
war  has  so  much  decreased  and  the  cause  of  peace  has  made  such 
large  gains,  the  standing  armaments  of  the  nations  have  reached 
such  a  point  of  development  in  size  and  expensiveness  as  at  the 
present  time.  But  these  very  armaments,  ludicrous  as  the  thought 
may  seem,  are  in  their  way  an  evidence  of  the  growth  and  spread 
of  peace.  They  would  have  been  impossible  two  centuries  ago,  when 
every  part  of  society  was  kept  exhausted  by  continual  fighting. 
Their  economic  possibility  lies  in  the  vast  increase  of  wealth  which 
the  general  disappearance  of  civil  war  has  given  opportunity  to 
produce.  They  are  feeding  upon  and  devouring  the  fruits  of  peace 
and  without  it  could  not  continue  to  exist. 

But  these  armaments  are  also  an  evidence  that  the  old  brutal 
spirit  of  greed,  hatred  and  violence  still  survives  from  the  past. 
They  have  primarily  no  relation  to  the  internal  affairs  of  the  na- 
tions. Their  motive  is  the  surviving  greed,  ambition  and  hatred, 
which,  since  their  citizens  ceased  to  fight  among  themselves,  the 
nations  have  turned  more  fully  against  one  another  and  let  loose 
in  such  totally  un-Christian  and  atrocious  ways  upon  weak  and  ill- 
civilized  peoples. 

These  bloated  and  frightfully  costly  armaments  are  at  the  same 
time  a  conspicuous  evidence  of  the  surviving  moral  stupidity  and 
primitive  brainlessness  of  these  great  internally  peaceful  groups  of 
men,  in  not  practicing  toward  one  another  the  common  sense  which 
they  have  learned  to  use  within  themselves,  and  in  destroying  in 


158 

this  colossal  way  the  wealth  which  they  are  so  anxious  and  careful 
to  create  in  their  internal  life  and  by  foreign  trade. 

The  considerations  which  I  have  adduced  are  sufficient  to  indi- 
cate clearly  the  present  position  of  the  peace  movement,  and  of 
the  great  evil  which  it  is  seeking  to  abolish.  They  also  point  out 
the  specific  ways  in  which  our  task  at  the  present  time  may  be  most 
effectually  performed.  These  may  be  summarized  in  a  few  sen- 
tences: 

1.  We  may  fairly  insist  that  the  large  elimination  of  war  which 
has  already  taken  place  gives  just  ground  for  believing  that  all 
war  will  ultimately  be  done  away;  that  we  are  not  acting  as  en- 
thusiasts and  dreamers  when  we  thus  declare,  but  are  reasoning 
upon  the  most  solid  historical  grounds;  and  that  it  is  those  who 
maintain  that  war  will  never  be  entirely  abolished  who  are  irra- 
tional and  sentimental. 

2.  Since,  speaking  in  general  terms,  only  international 
wars  and  those  for  territorial  and  commercial  expansion  remain, 
we  should  direct  our  chief  efforts  against  these,  instead  of  against 
war  in  the  abstract,  and  should  endeavor  to  make  it  plain  that  at 
this  age  of  the  world's  advancement  they  are  wholly  needless,  econ- 
omically unprofitable  and  in  every  way  unworthy  of  nations  pro- 
fessing a  high  degree  of  civilization,  love  of  right  and  liberty,  and 
claiming  to  be  guided  by  Christian  principles. 

3.  We  should  make  every  possible  effort  to  secure  the  establish- 
ment of  the  reign  of  law  instead  of  brute  force  in  the  realm  of  in- 
ternational affairs  as  it  has  been  so  largely  established  within  the 
nations,  and  should  maintain  against  all  comers  that  there  is  no 
more  reason  in  our  time  for  international  anarchy  than  for  anarchy 
and  civil  war  within  the  civilized  States. 

4.  We  must  let  our  testimony  ring  out  straight  and  uncom- 
promising against  the  growing  military  and  naval  establishments 
of  our  time,  as  entirely  out  of  date,  as  economically  ruinous  and 
morally  debasing  to  the  populations  of  the  countries,  and  as  having 
now  no  ground  for  existence  except  that  of  greed,  jealousy  and 
hatred  worthy  only  of  barbarians, 

5.  We  must  throw  our  influence  at  all  possible  points  toward 
a  larger  friendly  association  and  co-operation  of  the  nations — 
in  trade,  in  travel  and  residence,  in  treaties  and  conventions  for 
promoting  common  interests,  in  scientific  and  hygienic  investiga- 
tions, and  the  like. 

6.  In  view  of  the  remarkable  success  of  arbitration  the  past 
century,  we  ought  to  declare  in  unhesitating  terms  that  the  set- 
tlement by  this  means  of  two  hundred  controversies  of  nearly  every 
conceivable  kind,  in  every  one  of  which  the  difficulty  has  been 
finally  and  permanently  disposed  of,  leaves  no  ground  for  believ- 
ing that  there  is  any  sort  of  international  dispute  which  may  not 
be  arbitrated  without  the  least  loss  of  honor  or  prestige. 


159 

7.  "We  are  fully  warranted  in  claiming  that  the  civilized  na- 
tions, by  the  getting  up  of  the  Hague  Court,  have  cut  from  beneath 
them  the  last  ground  for  believing  in  the  necessity  of  war,  and 
that  they  cannot  hereafter  appeal  to  brute  force  without  self-con- 
demnation and  self-stultification. 

8.  We  must  recognize,  enter  heartily  into  and  co-operate  in  all 
possible  ways  with  the  organized  peace  propaganda,  as  the  most 
effective  way  of  fitting  ourselves  for  our  own  personal  work  and 
making  our  voices  heard  in  behalf  of  this  greatest  of  all  social  move- 
ments. 

While  doing  our  work  along  these  specific  practical  lines, 
marked  out  for  us  by  the  general  condition  of  the  times  in  which 
we  live,  we  shall  have  opportunity  to  work  in  at  every  turn  all  the 
old  ethical  and  Christian  arguments  against  war,  which  will  never 
lose  their  force  and  appropriateness  until  the  sound  of  the  last  can- 
non has  died  away  and  the  last  fit  of  international  passion  has  spent 
itself. 

The  Chairman:  The  papers  which  we  have  heard  this  even- 
ing will  now  be  open  for  discussion.  The  discussion  will  be  opened 
by  William  C.  Dennis,  who  has  just  been  chosen  by  Albert  K. 
Smiley  as  the  new  Secretary  of  the  Lake  Mohonk  International 
Arbitration  Conference. 

William  C.  Dennis:  Dr.  Trueblood  has  referred  to  the  fact 
that  private  war  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  It  seemed  to  me  that  it 
would  be  interesting  to  consider  for  a  short  time  the  method  by 
which  private  war  disappeared,  as  this  may  possibly  throw  some 
light  on  the  way  in  which  public  war  will  finally  disappear. 

There  were  at  least  four  stages  in  the  history  of  the  disappear- 
ance of  private  war.  When  our  Saxon  ancestors  wandered  over  the 
forests  of  Germany,  private  war  was  entirely  unregulated;  it  was 
their  method  of  doing  justice  between  man  and  man.  There  were 
no  rules;  when  one  man  injured  another,  the  family  of  the  injured 
man  went  and  took  vengeance  on  the  wrongdoer  in  any  way  they 
saw  fit.  They  could  surprise  a  man  at  any  time  of  day  or  night  and 
kill  him.  That  seemed  a  little  bit  hard;  so  afterwards  private  war 
was  regulated.  A  rule  was  established  that  if  one  man  had  mur- 
dered another  the  relatives  of  the  injured  man  could  not  go  in  the 
night-time  and  attack  the  one  who  had  done  the  injury;  they  must 
go  in  the  daytime.  Thus  private  vengeance  began  to  be  regulated. 
There  is  an  old  English  statute  that  if  one  man  accidentally  fell 
out  of  a  tree  and  killed  another  man  by  falling  on  him  the  relatives 
of  the  latter  must  fall  out  of  the  same  tree  on  him  and  kill  him. 

Finally,  the  Siate  got  to  be  a  little  stronger,  and  courts  were 
set  up  as  an  alternative  for  private  war — not  as  a  substitute,  but  as 
an  alternative.  An  injured  man  might  proceed  to  take  vengeance 
according  to  the  rules,  unless  the  offender  offered  to  buy  himself 


160 

off.  In  that  event  the  case  went  to  the  court.  That  was  the  third 
stage,  where  the  court  and  the  private  war  were  alternatives. 

Then,  of  course,  came  the  last  stage,  when  private  war  was 
finally  abolished  by  the  court  taking  its  place.  That  was  the  his- 
tory of  the  disappearance  of  private  war. 

Public  war  has  so  far  followed  a  similar  course.  In  the  first 
place  it  was  unregulated;  there  were  no  rules.  Prisoners  were  killed 
in  the  early  days,  perhaps  even  eaten.  Then  they  came  to  be  finally 
sold  as  slaves.  Still,  there  were  no  rules.  Then  came  Grotius  and 
the  Laws  of  War;  war  passed  into  the  stage  of  regulation.  Now  we 
have  just  reached  the  third  stage — the  stage  where  we  have  an  al- 
ternative to  war,  the  Court  of  International  Arbitration.  In  the 
time  of  Henry  II.,  or  just  previous  to  his  time,  the  courts  were 
itinerant;  they  were  not  regular,  stated  courts  at  permanent  places. 
Henry  set  up  in  addition  a  permanent  Court  of  Appeal.  We  have 
just  done  the  same  thing  in  the  matter  of  arbitration  between  na- 
tions. Heretofore  we  have  simply  had  tribunals  of  arbitration 
made  up  for  the  occasion;  now  we  have  a  central,  permanent  court, 
not  yet  compulsory. 

There  is  still  one  great  step  to  be  taken,  to  make  the  resort  to 
the  court  compulsory,  as  it  is  now  in  private  affairs.  I  was  talking 
the  other  day  along  this  line  with  a  member  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  a  man  who  does  not  believe  very  much  in  the  immediate 
future  of  international  arbitration.  He  pointed  out  the  fact  that 
private  war  was  quite  limited;  that  the  two  individuals  who  en- 
gaged in  it  belonged  at  least  to  the  same  tribe,  that  there  was  some 
connection  between  them.  He  went  on  and  pointed  out  that  pri- 
vate war  did  not  cease  until  a  strong  central  power  was  established. 
"  Now,''  he  said,  "  if  my  analogy  proves  anything,  it  proves  that 
before  we  can  get  rid  of  war  between  nations  there  will  have  to  be 
a  strong  international  political  State  to  stand  behind  a  tribunal  of 
arbitration,"  and  he  thought  it  would  be  a  long  time  before  we 
came  to  this  stage,  and  until  that  time  the  future  of  arbitration  was 
•very  doubtful  indeed. 

It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  he  has  met  all  that  the  analogy  re- 
quires. In  the  first  place,  we  have  already  a  sort  of  international 
State.  That  is  what  we  have  been  hearing  about  to-day.  In  the 
times  of  the  Saxons,  England  was  a  heptarchy;  now  the  world  is 
something  of  that  sort.  The  Dual  Alliance  and  the  Triple  Alliance 
have  come  very  near  reducing  the  warlike  unities  of  the  world  to 
three;  and  however  bad  they  are,  it  is  better  to  have  them  reduced 
to  three  than  to  have  thousends,  as  there  were  in  the  past.  The 
concert  of  Europe,  imperfect  as  it  is,  unsatisfactory  as  it  has  been, 
has  at  least  accustomed  the  nations  to  acting  together.  We  have 
thus  the  germ  of  a  political,  international  State.  We  have  been 
hearing  to-day  that  we  have  in  process  of  formation  an  interna- 
tional State  in  a  different  sense,  namely,  socially,  religiously,  indus- 
trially, commercially.    We  have  in  that  way  an  international  State 


161 

such  as  our  Saxon  ancestors  never  dreamed  of.  National  bounds 
were  then  conclusive;  society  did  not  go  outside  the  State;  it  did  not 
usually  go  outside  the  community.  Nominally  the  church  went 
outside  of  the  State,  but  not  very  much.  Now,  as  has  been  repeat- 
edly pointed  out  to-day,  society  is  international.  Labor  unions  are 
international;  your  laborers  in  Germany  do  not  want  to  rejoice 
over  the  misfortunes  of  laborers  in  France.  However  much  we  may 
regret  that  close  lines  are  being  drawn  between  capital  and  labor, 
it  at  least  has  its  advantage;  it  is  abolishing  the  national  lines. 
Thus  we  do  have  an  international  State,  socially,  politically,  re- 
ligiously and  industrially  in  the  sense  they  did  not  have  in  the  days 
of  our  Saxon  ancestors. 

History  does  not  have  to  move  exactly  in  circles;  it  may  some- 
times move  in  spirals.  The  unification  that  we  have  had  in  the 
past  has  been  by  force.  England  was  made  into  one  country  by 
force;  we  got  up  to  the  present  state  of  unification  largely  by  might. 
We  shall  not  get  the  unification  of  the  future  by  force,  but  by 
consent.  I  do  not  think  it  is  physically  possible  to  get  it  by  force. 
There  will  never  again  be  such  a  favorable  opportunity  as  in  the 
time  of  Napoleon  to  establish  a  world-empire  by  force.  Democracy 
is  making  it  so  that  one  man  cannot  get  the  start  of  the  world  as 
Napoleon  did;  all  the  rest  are  acquiring  the  intelligence  to  combine 
and  stop  it.  Probably  no  great  nation  will  ever  be  defeated  worse 
than  France  was  defeated  by  Germany  in  1870,  and  yet  Germany 
never  thought  of  annexing  France.  The  war  would  have  been  go- 
ing on  yet  if  Germany  had  attempted  to  do  anything  like  that.  If 
the  unification  of  the  future  is  to  come  by  consent,  it  is  natural 
that  it  should  not  come  first  to  the  executive.  A  world-State  made 
by  force  would  naturally  come  to  the  executive  first;  but  a  world- 
State  made  by  consent  would  naturally  move  along  the  lines  of 
least  resistance  and  come  through  the  organization  of  the  judiciary. 

For  all  these  reasons  it  seems  to  me  that  the  analogy  of  the  abo- 
lition of  public  war  along  the  same  general  lines  as  that  of  private 
war  does  not  require  that  we  have  any  international  State  in  a  po- 
litical sense  before  we  see  the  success  of  an  international  tribunal 
like  that  at  The  Hague. 

This  way  of  the  judiciary  first  is  the  Quaker  way,  the  method  of 
William  Penn.  Two  hundred  years  ago  William  Penn  made  the 
first  proposition,  so  far  as  I  know,  for  a  strictly  judicial  court. 
Other  people  planned  national  councils,  but  they  were  more  or 
less  political  or  religious  schemes.  He  proposed  a  court,  pure  and 
simple;  and  we  as  Friends  ought  to  take  up  the  work  that  he  in- 
itiated; we  ought  to  stand  behind  and  promote  the  one  practical 
step  which  can  be  made  now,  which  is  the  supporting  of  the 
Hague  tribunal.  Our  immediate  duty  is  to  see  that  it  is  made  ab- 
solutely impossible  for  this  country  to  go  to  war  without  submit- 
ting to  that  tribunal  any  dispute  which  it  may  hereafter  have  with 
any  nation. 


163 

The  Chaieman:  We  have  now  time  for  four  five-minute 
speeches, 

Joel  Boeton:  The  object  of  this  gathering  is  to  confer  in 
reference  to  the  outlook  for  peace,  and  it  is  no  doubt  an  opportune 
time  for  this.  I  have  wished  since  we  have  heard  these  excellent 
papers  and  discussions  that  we  had  the  ears  of  the  world.  We  who 
are  assembled  here  are  all  peace  people;  but  we  have  been  sleeping, 
and  it  is  time  that  we  were  aroused  and  aroused  somebody  else.  Had 
we  been  aroused  six  years  ago,  as  we  are  at  the  present  time  and 
have  been  in  the  past  three  years,  there  would  have  been,  in  my 
judgment,  no  war.  The  outlook  for  peace  at  the  present  time,  how- 
ever, is  to  me  quite  encouraging.  As  was  said  this  morning,  na- 
tions do  not  care  now  to  meet  one  another  in  war;  the  destruction 
of  life,  the  loss  of  property,  are  too  great.  Again  our  close  connec- 
tion with  other  nations  by  commerce,  by  religion  and  education  is 
an  indication  that  we  cannot  afford  to  go  to  war.  The  manner  in 
which  nations  are  tied  together  to-day  by  the  cable  makes  us  no 
longer  individual  nations;  the  people  of  the  world  are  one  people. 
War,  for  these  reasons,  must  cease. 

The  Hague  Conference,  the  International  Court  of  Arbitration, 
already  referred  to,  is  to  me  one  of  the  greatest  steps  in  the  right 
direction.  But  all  is  not  yet  done.  What  we  need  to  do  is  to 
arouse  ourselves  to  action  and  to  stir  up  the  sleeping  sentiment 
about  us.  I  know  of  no  better  motto  for  us  than  those  words  of  the 
late  ex- President  Harrison,  uttered  in  New  York,  that  "  Christ  in 
the  heart  and  His  love  in  the  nation  "  is  the  only  cure  for  all  the 
ills  that  confront  us  to-day, 

HowAED  M.  Jenkins:  I  wish  to  take  only  about  a  minute  to 
Bay  that  in  my  judgment  the  presentation  made  by  most  of  our  his- 
torical writers,  by  most  of  those  who  have  had  the  attention  of  the 
American  people  and  of  other  people,  in  regard  to  the  Indians  of 
Pennsylvania,  has  been  made  with  the  intention  of  detracting  from 
the  fame  of  William  Penn.  This  is  very  largely  due  to  the  genius 
of  that  prince  among  American  historians,  Francis  Parkman. 
Parkman  has  been  followed  by  pretty  much  everybody  else.  He 
took  his  ideas  from  two  sources:  first,  the  New  England  idea,  which 
was  that  the  Indian  was  a  heathen  and  ought  to  be  exterminated; 
and,  second,  from  the  presentation  by  the  writers  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  particularly  Albert  Gallatin,  who  had  the  idea  that  the 
Indians  of  Pennsylvania  were  always  and  entirely  subject  to  the 
Five  Nations  of  New  York,  and  were  in  general  such  a  poor  lot 
that  Penn's  living  in  peace  with  them  was  no  particular  credit  to 
him. 

That  is  the  theory  which  runs  through  all  our  history  of  Penn's 
work  with  the  Indians,  and  against  which  the  writers  of  Pennsyl- 
vania have  either  not  contended  at  all,  or  have  contended  in  vain. 


163 

It  is  an  illusion;  it  is  not  true;  I  think  it  is  totally  unfounded  in 
fact.  The  Indians  of  the  Delaware  Valley  were  much  like  the 
other  Indians  of  the  United  States.  Penn  and  the  early  FriendSj 
the  early  colonists  of  Pennsylvania,  lived  in  peace  with  them  be- 
cause they  adopted  a  true  and  honest  and  generous  peace  method. 

William  L.  Price:  It  seems  to  me  that  those  old  sages  made 
their  pious  claim  rightly  when  they  treated  war  as  only  the  nega- 
tion of  the  things  they  should  stand  for.  They  were  constructive 
people;  their  religion  and  their  economics  were  full  of  construction; 
they  stood  for  something  positive,  something  in  advance  of  the 
other  people.  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  for  the  Society  of  Friends 
to  meet  in  Conference  of  this  kind  and  merely  send  out  the  same 
old  message  against  war,  does  not  put  it  on  constructive  grounds 
at  all,  or  in  advance  of  its  always  understood  position.  It  means 
almost  nothing  simply  to  proclaim  again  what  the  Society  has  al- 
ways stood  for.  It  would  mean  much  if  this  Conference  or  any 
similar  conference  should  take  up  the  lines  of  constructive,  eco- 
nomic thought  that  have  been  intimated  here — questions  of 
broader  trade  association,  and  more  perfect  relations  between  the 
nations.  It  would  be  a  constructive  work  and  one  on  which  the 
Friends  could  start  the  world  if  they  would  take  up  the  peace  mes- 
sage of  our  President  who  was  shot,  his  last  and  greatest  message, 
in  which  he  said,  that  too  long  we  had  stood  alone,  and  the  time 
had  come  when  we  must  reach  out  our  hands  to  all  the  world.  I 
think  that  shot  should  go  around  the  world  from  this  kind  of  con- 
vention far  more  than  a  mere  peace  proposition.  Then  there  is 
another  point,  and  that  is,  that  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand  "  means  something,  and  has  always  meant  something.  The 
trouble  is  that  we  have  always  expected  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to 
come  from  without;  whereas  Jesus  meant  that  it  was  at  hand  in  the 
sense  that  it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  people  to  whom  He  spoke,  that 
it  was  in  their  power  to  bring  it  in  then,  not  after  awhile,  not  after 
growth,  but  immediately.  That  was  always  true,  and  it  is  still 
true. 

The  Conference  then  adjourned,  after  a  moment  of  reverent 
silence,  to  meet  in  the  Twelfth  Street  Friends'  Meeting  House  at 
ten  o'clock  on  Seventh-day  morning. 


Seventb  Session. 


Seventh-day  Morning,  Twelfth  Month  14th. 

The  Conference  gathered  at  10  o'clock,  on  Seventh-day  morn- 
ing, in  the  Twelfth  Street  Meeting  House,  with  Arthur  Perry,  of 
Boston,  Mass.,  presiding. 

The  session  opened  with  a  period  of  devotion,  during  which 
vocal  prayer  was  offered  by  Anna  Braithwaite  Thomas,  of  Balti- 
more, and  remarks  were  made  by  Isaac  Wilson,  of  Canada,  in  which 
he  expressed  his  gratification  that  the  Conference  had  met  and  that 
the  Friends  were  thus  trying  in  a  more  practical  way  than  previous- 
ly to  carry  out  their  high  profession,  and  his  desire  that  all  might 
abide  in  the  spirit  of  living  prayer,  that  the  power  of  the  life  of 
peace  might  be  individually  realized. 

The  Chairman:  I  esteem  it  a  privilege  to  preside  at  a  session 
of  this  Conference,  and  thus  to  some  extent  be  identified  with  its 
work  and  its  purpose,  for  its  work  is  the  re-statement  and  uphold- 
ing of  the  time-honored  testimony  of  Friends  in  behalf  of  peace, 
and  its  purpose  to  consider  ways  and  means  of  doing  away  with  the 
horrors  of  war  by  abolishing  war  itself. 

Time  and  again  the  Meetings  for  Sufferings  or  Executive  Meet- 
ings of  our  several  bodies  have  addressed  memorials  on  this  subject 
to  those  in  political  power,  which  have  been  as  beacon  lights  on  the 
pathway  to  peace. 

The  present  Conference  affords  opportunity  for  the  re-examina- 
tion of  the  foundation  of  our  peace  principles,  and  the  issuance  to 
the  world  of  an  appeal  for  the  support  of  international  arbitration. 
We  are  accused  of  having  high  ideals  and  impractical  theories.  But 
history  has  in  many  instances  demonstrated  the  wisdom  as  well 
as  the  possibility  of  referring  international  disputes  to  special  courts 
of  arbitration,  and  to-day  the  great  nations  of  the  earth  have  united 
in  establishing  the  Hague  Permanent  Court  of  International  Arbi- 
tration. The  practical  and  sensible  course  for  the  advocates  of 
peace  is  to  bring  every  possible  influence  to  bear  to  secure  the  ref- 
erence to  this  court  of  international  claims  which  have  failed  to  be 
settled  throught  the  ordinary  diplomatic  channels. 

It  is  also  important  that  we  uphold  the  hands  of  those  in  au- 
thority in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  our  country  who 
openly  proclaim  that  they  desire  that  peace  shall  prevail.  It  is  an 
old  adage  that  responsibility  sobers  and  steadies  one's  judgment, 
and  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  great  rulers  of  to-day  seek  to 
avoid  war,  and  resort  to  it  only  when  forced  by  an  overwhelming 


force  of  popular  opinion;  and  even  when  nation  does  go  to  war 
with  nation,  each  seeks  to  throw  the  responsibility  upon  the  other. 

Another  practical  work,  then,  in  the  direction  of  peace  is  the 
creation  of  a  wholesome,  right  and  pure  public  sentiment  upon  this 
question.  Papers  have  been  read  before  this  Conference  bearing 
directly  upon  this  suggestion,  namely,  the  necessity  of  educating 
the  rising  generation  to  right  ideas  of  force  and  patriotism.  In 
this  connection  I  am  tempted  to  add  an  incident  or  two  in  illustra- 
tion and  support  of  tlie  ground  taken  in  Dr.  Thomas's  very  ex- 
cellent paper  on  the  "  Christian  Idea  of  Force."  In  the  late  civil 
war  many  Friends  were  drafted,  among  them  a  young  man,  who, 
while  confined  in  camp  pending  the  disposition  of  his  case,  rcfu-ed 
to  join  in  military  duty,  and  for  continued  disobedience  was  ordered 
to  be  shot.  When  brought  before  the  men  who  were  to  execute 
him,  he  uttered  these  words:  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do."  The  soldiers  refused  to  shoot,  and  the  mounted 
ojBBcer,  in  his  anger,  attempted  to  drive  his  horse  over  the  man, 
but  without  success,  and  he  was  ordered  back  to  quarters.  Who, 
in  this  incident,  was  the  real  hero?  \Vho  displayed  true  courage? 
Who  had  real  force? 

Again,  a  father  and  son,  drafted  into  British  military  service 
many  years  ago  and  refusing  military  duty,  were  condemned  to  be 
shot.  The  woman  who  was  to  lose  husband  and  son  sat  between 
them,  holding  the  hand  of  each  when  the  fatal  shots  were  fired; 
where  was  the  courage  then — in  the  soldiers  behind  the  guns,  or  in 
that  wife  and  mother  and  those  heroes  who  gave  up  life  rather 
than  violate  conscience?  We  do  not  mean  to  misrepresent  or  be- 
little the  courage  or  patriotism  of  soldiers,  but  these  are  the  great 
truths  that  we  want  to  teach  our  children.  We  do  believe  in  force, 
and  we  do  believe  in  courage,  but  the  greatest  force  is  the  power  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  highest  courage  is  that  of  self-sacrifice. 

Agitation  and  education,  co-operation  with  all  who  sincerely 
desire  that  peace  shall  prevail,  will  advance  our  cause.  I  trust  that 
the  committee  will  act  favorably  upon  the  suggestion  that  this 
Conference  send  resolutions  of  sympathy  to  President  Roosevelt, 
assuring  him  of  our  confidence  in  the  sincerity  of  his  purpose  to 
preserve  peace,  and  of  our  desire  to  uphold  him  therein.  We  can- 
not endorse  all  the  methods  by  which  some  would  maintain  peace, 
but  we  can  commend  the  purpose  in  view.  President  Sharpless 
showed  us  last  night  how  almost  impossible  it  is  even  for  Friends 
to  be  absolutely  consistent  in  their  testimony  against  war.  Let  us 
be  charitable  to  those  who  cannot  go  the  full  length  with  us,  and 
work  with  them  as  far  as  they  will  go.  I  do  not  look  to  see  war 
abolished  simply  because  it  is  wrong  and  unchristian,  but  because 
the  time  is  coming  when,  even  from  a  worldly  point  of  view,  it  will 
be  inexpedient,  and  the  very  selfishness  and  avarice  which  were 
once  the  cause  of  wars  will  then  compel  peace. 


166 

The  Chaieman:  The  first  paper  on  the  program  this  morn- 
ing is  by  Henry  W.  Wilbur,  of  New  York  city;  subject,  "  The  Duty 
of  the  Christian  Church  at  the  Present  Time  in  the  Movement  to 
Abolish  War."  As  he  has  not  yet  arrived  we  will  take  up  the  next 
paper,  by  President  James  B.  Tin  thank,  Wilmington  College,  Ohio, 
upon  the  subject,  "  Mistakes  and  Failures  of  Friends  in  their  Peace 
Work." 


MISTAKES  AND  FAILURES  OF  FRIENDS  IN  THEIR 
PEACE  WORK. 

BY  PRESIDENT  JASCES  B.   UNTHANK,   WILlVaNGTON  COLLEGE,  OHIO. 

To  make  the  mistakes  and  failures  of  one's  own  denomination 
the  subject  of  inquiry  and  discussion  seems  such  an  ungracious  act 
that  I  hesitate  to  undertake  it.  Most  of  us  who  are  here  to-day  owe 
so  much  to  the  Society  in  which  we  were  born  and  reared,  and  look 
upon  it  with  so  much  love  and  veneration,  that  the  idea  of  such  in- 
vestigation suggests  ingratitude  and  disloyalty. 

It  would  be  a  much  pleasanter  task  to  recount  the  story  of  our 
successes  and  achievements.  And  yet  if  Friends  still  have  a  mission 
in  the  world,  if  they  are  called  in  the  providence  of  God  to  serve  the 
cause  of  righteousness  and  truth  in  the  future,  there  may  be  more 
profit  in  resolutely  and  dispassionately  considering  our  mistakes 
and  failures  than  in  congratulating  ourselves  on  what  we  have  al- 
ready accomplished  for  the  world.  It  is,  therefore,  in  no  spirit  of 
carping  or  criticism  that  I  undertake  the  task  assigned  me;  and  if 
any  statements  made  or  sentiments  expressed  in  this  paper  seem  se- 
vere or  disagreeable  they  are  not  made  with  any  feeling  of  unkind- 
ness  or  irreverence,  but  with  a  sincere  desire  to  tell  the  truth  and 
promote  the  cause  we  have  met  to  consider. 

I  shall  not  discuss  the  sul^ject  from  the  liistoric  standpoint,  as 
that  would  be  more  curious  than  practical;  but  I  desire  to  treat  it 
more  from  the  philosophic  standpoint  with  the  purpose  to  show  if 
possible  the  causes  of  our  failure. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  there  is  one  principal  mistake  that 
Friends  have  made  with  respect  to  their  attitude  concerning  this 
peace  movement,  and  all  the  others  have  grown  out  of  it  and  are 
subordinate  to  it.  There  have  been  two  main  causes  of  this  mis- 
take, as  I  understand  them,  and  it  shall  be  my  purpose  to  show  how 
these  causes  have  operated  to  produce  their  results. 

The  principal  mistake  has  been  in  a  failure  to  inaugurate  and 
carry  on  energetic,  well-organized  and  persistent  efforts  to  dissemi- 
nate peace  principles.  Our  efforts  have  been  too  desultory  and  un- 
certain to  produce  lasting  effects. 

The  mission  of  Friends  has  always  been,  at  least  until  recent 
years,  largely  directed  to  professing  Christians  rather  than  to  those 
outside  the  churches.     Our  distinctive  work  has  been  educational 


and  reformatory  rather  than  evangelistic.  George  Fox's  message 
was  primarily  addressed  to  church  members,  "  professors,"  as  he 
was  accustomed  to  style  them;  and  early  Friends  were  largely  gath- 
ered from  the  established  Church  and  the  various  dissenting  bodies 
of  that  day.  Ever  since  that  time  the  idea  that  took  such  strong 
hold  upon  the  founders  that  they  held  advanced  views  upon  cer- 
tain essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  which  were  neglected  by 
others,  has  prevailed  and  still  persists  to  a  large  degree. 

This  being  the  case,  it  could  hardly  be  otherwise  than  that  our 
mission,  as  we  apprehend  it,  should  be  to  enlighten  the  conscience 
of  those  professing  Christ's  name,  and  bring  them  up  to  higher 
standards  of  faith  and  practice  rather  than  to  increase  the  number 
of  nominal  Christians.  In  some  of  the  questions  upon  which  we 
took  high  ground  we  have  had  large  influence  and  have  been  mainly 
instrumental  in  effecting  several  important  reforms  in  religious  and 
social  matters. 

We  have  done  much  to  bring  about  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State,  thus  securing  religious  toleration  and  freedom  for  all  de- 
nominations. The  repeal  of  conventicle  acts,  the  abolition  of  tith- 
ing taxes,  of  judicial  oaths,  of  enforced  military  service,  have  been 
largely  due  to  the  efforts  of  Friends. 

Our  influence  in  some  of  these  movements  has  been  out  of  all 
proportion  to  our  numerical  strength,  and  affords  just  ground  for 
that  pleasant  retrospect  in  which  we  are  somewhat  wont  to  indulge. 
The  question  naturally  arises,  Why  have  we  been  able  to  accom- 
plish so  much  in  these  directions  while  in  the  matter  under  consid- 
eration by  this  Conference  we  have  achieved  so  little?  I  take  it  for 
granted,  of  course,  that  at  least  partial  failure  in  our  peace  work  is 
conceded  by  all.  Certainly  no  well-informed  person,  no  matter  how 
strong  his  Quaker  proclivities,  will  assert  that  we  have  done  all  that 
we  might  have  done  and  ought  to  have  done  to  promote  this  great 
reform.  The  reason  for  this  difference  in  results  lies  partly,  I  think, 
in  the  fundamental  difference  between  the  two  cases,  so  that  the 
means  and  methods  used  successfully  in  one  case  were  wholly  inap- 
plicable to  the  other.  Failure  to  see  this  distinction  led  naturally 
and  inevitably  to  a  failure  to  adapt  the  means  used  to  the  end  to  be 
obtained. 

The  efforts  of  early  Friends  were  primarily  directed  against  re- 
ligious oppression  in  its  various  forms.  They  were  zealous  and  ag- 
gressive in  advocating  the  right  of  religious  freedom  for  themselves 
and  other  dissenters.  This  brought  upon  them  the  violent  opposi- 
tion of  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  authorities.  They  soon  found 
themselves  confronted,  in  Mr.  Cleveland's  phrase,  "  by  a  condition 
instead  of  a  theory." 

As  Friends  they  could  not  forcibly  resist  the  civil  law,  nor  could 
they  conscientiously  obey  its  requirements.  The  only  thing  they 
could  do  was  to  go  to  jail,  and  the  only  thing  the  authorities  could 
do  was  to  send  them  there.    Here   was  a  situation   in   which  the 


168 

Friends  had  the  decided  advantage  of  their  opponents,  although  it 
may  have  appeared  quite  the  reverse.  But  it  was  a  situation  exactly 
suited  to  Quaker  tactics,  to  use  a  military  phrase.  Thirteen  thou- 
sand Quakers  in  English  jails  for  conscience'  sake,  with  an  indefi- 
nite number  of  others  ready  to  follow  their  example,  was  too  strong 
a  protest  against  intolerance  to  go  unheeded.  The  authorities  were 
utterly  nonplussed  by  the  non-resisting  Friends,  who,  however, 
showed  no  signs  of  weakening  in  regard  to  their  main  contention. 
The  right  demanded  must  be  conceded  or  larger  jails  must  be  built. 
They  chose  to  grant  toleration  as  the  easiest,  most  practical  solution 
of  the  difficulty,  and  so  Friends  won  their  case.  Tbus  our  first  and 
greatest  conquests  were  won  by  meekly  and  patiently  suffering  for 
a  conviction.  Thus  we  had  early  stamped  upon  us  by  the  very  con- 
ditions of  our  origin  that  peculiar  disposition  tbat  has  since  charac- 
terized us  as  an  organization,  to  wit:  a  genius  for  suffering  rather 
than  for  action.  If  Friends  could  promote  a  cause  by  going  to 
prison,  by  standing  in  the  pillory,  by  suffering  the  spoiling  of  their 
goods,  they  were  always  ready  and  sometimes  apparently  anxious 
to  do  so. 

But  these  qualities,  it  will  be  observed,  are  passive  rather  than 
active,  and  can  only  be  useful  in  promoting  truth  under  certain 
well-defined  conditions.  They  are  in  marked  contrast  with  that 
aggressive  activity  which  characterized  Fox  and  his  co-laborers  in 
that  earlier  stage  of  our  historic  development  that  preceded  the  per- 
secution. Since  the  first  generation  of  Friends  passed  away  it  has 
been  their  sufferings  that  have  been  commended  and  held  up  for 
approval  as  a  shining  example.  We  have  heard  little  of  their  ag- 
gressive zeal  and  energetic  activity;  this  seems  to  have  been  lost 
sight  of  in  our  excessive  admiration  for  their  patient  virtues.  So 
thoroughly  then  hare  we  become  imbued  with  the  idea  of  the  value 
of  meekness,  patience,  forbearance  and  suffering,  so  inwoven  have 
been  these  virtues  into  our  organic  structure  that  it  becomes  a  ques- 
tion whether  we  are  longer  capable  of  that  high  and  noble  enthusi- 
asm, that  strong  and  powerful  impulse  to  activity,  that  ardor  and 
zeal  for  positive  convictions  that  must  characterize  the  individual 
and  the  Church  whose  mission  is  reform.  Advanced  ideas,  combat- 
ting, as  they  often  must,  traditions  hoary  with  age,  ignorance  dense 
and  widespread,  selfishness  comfortable  and  conservative,  and  in 
fact  every  form  of  human  weakness  and  depravity  must  be  pro- 
moted and  disseminated  by  other  and  more  active  agencies. 

I  am  not  disparaging  or  under-valuing  these  noble  qualities.  I 
honor  and  respect  them  as  essential  to  the  reformer;  but  unless  they 
are  combined  with  more  active  virtues  they  are  of  little  worth.  A 
man  must  first  be  aggressive  enough  to  get  himself  hated  suffi- 
ciently to  be  thrown  into  jail  before  he  can  help  a  cause  very  much 
by  suffering  for  it  in  that  way.  A  mere  desire  to  go  to  prison,  to  be- 
come a  martyr,  may  indicate  a  very  morbid  and  unhealthy  mental 
condition.    These  things  are  only  the  incidents  and  accidents  in  the 


160 

life  of  him  who  works  for  the  promotion  of  some  worthy  cause. 
Really  there  is  not  now,  nor  has  there  been  in  English-speaking 
coimtries  for  many  years  much  opportunity  to  suffer  in  the  cause  of 
peace.  War  is  a  temporary,  sporadic  condition  of  society,  not  a 
chronic  or  normal  one.  To  oppose  war  in  the  abstract  as  wrong  in 
theory  would  not  be  objected  to  anywhere.  To  refuse  to  perform 
military  service  in  a  country  where  armies  are  raised  by  conscrip- 
tion may  be  considered  as  criminal  and  punished  as  such,  but  it  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  a  protest  against  war  itself.  To  oppose  a  par- 
ticular war  when  in  progress  may  become  treason  and  be  punished 
as  such;  but  it  is  not  likely  to  have  much  weight,  if  any,  against  the 
war  system.  War  is  an  evil  that  must  be  corrected  by  educational 
methods,  by  appeals  to  the  higher  and  nobler  instincts  of  human 
nature,  by  inculcating  sound  principles  of  morality,  by  creating 
in  the  public  mind  a  truer  sense  of  justice,  by  convincing  public 
sentiment  not  only  of  its  inherent  immorality,  but  also  of  its  utter 
unreasonableness  as  an  expedient;  and  this  educational  work  must 
be  carried  on  in  time  of  peace  while  the  public  mind  is  not  inflamed 
by  those  passions  and  prejudices  that  render  all  appeals  to  reason 
and  the  finer  sensibilities  futile  and  vain. 

Here  has  been  for  the  past  two  hundred  years  and  more  a  fine 
opportunity  for  the  exercise  of  those  active  and  aggressive  qualities 
that  characterized  the  first  Quakers,  but  which  seem  to  have  died 
out  when  the  first  generation  passed  away.  The  great  mistake 
which  Friends  have  made  in  their  peace  work  is  that  they  have  not 
worked  at  it.  The  only  reason  why  a  movement  of  such  transcend- 
ent importance,  one  that  is  sustained  by  the  best  interpretations  of 
Christianity,  by  the  purest  morality,  by  the  most  weighty  consider- 
ations of  equity  and  expediency  has  not  made  more  progress  is  that 
it  has  not  been  preached  with  that  enthusiasm  and  eloquence  and 
logic  that  it  deserves. 

We  as  Friends  must  bear  our  share  of  this  responsibility,  for  we 
have  been  the  natural  and  avowed  champions  of  this  doctrine  for 
two  centuries  and  a  half,  and  we  have  not  produced  that  impression 
on  society  that  we  ought  to  have  done — have  not  come  up  to  the 
measure  of  our  great  opportunity. 

Here  was  a  cause  worthy  of  the  best  efforts  we  could  have  put 
forth;  worthy  of  our  wisest  counsels,  of  our  clearest  thinking;  a 
cause  that  appeals  to  every  high  instinct  in  human  nature,  to  every 
manly  virtue,  to  every  chivalrous  feeling;  a  cause  whose  success 
means  the  well  being  of  millions  of  human  beings,  whose  failure  or 
postponement  means  untold  misery  and  distress  to  the  innocent 
and  helpless  victims  of  war;  a  cause  which  deserves  the  most  unsel- 
fish devotion  and  the  most  energetic  support,  and  yet  it  has  failed 
to  arouse  us  to  any  high  pitch  of  enthusiasm  or  action.  During  the 
period  covered  by  our  history  the  cause  has  made  great  strides  for- 
ward, to  be  sure;  but  I  regret  to  feel  that  we  have  not  even  con- 
tributed our  share  of  the  efforts  and  sacrifices  that  have  produced 


170 

this  progress.  Why  do  I  think  so?  Because  the  evidence  of  such 
service  is  wanting  in  the  history  of  our  Society.  We  could  not  have 
been  as  active  and  energetic  as  we  should  have  been  without  making 
our  mark  in  history.  Where  are  our  great  names,  distinguished  by 
their  learning  and  eloquence,  and  glorified  by  their  devotion  to  this 
cause?  Where  is  that  body  of  noble  literature  that  ought  to  have 
grown  up  amongst  us  in  our  efforts  to  promote  so  noble  a  reform? 
We  shall  search  for  both  in  vain. 

I  have  now  given  what  may  be  termed  the  historic  reason  for 
our  failure  to  fulfill  that  great  mission  as  a  reform  organization  that 
seemed  especially  marked  out  for  us  by  the  hand  of  Providence,  and 
of  which  Friends  have  been  dimly  conscious  through  all  these  years. 
I  propose  now  to  give  what  may  be  regarded  as  a  sort  of  constitu- 
tional reason,  based  as  it  is  on  the  inherent  nature  of  Quakerism 
itself. 

Now  it  may  be  necessary  for  me,  for  fear  of  being  misunder- 
stood, to  preface  this  part  of  the  paper  by  the  statement  that  I  am 
a  genuine  Quaker.  I  accept  and  believe  most  of  the  essential  doc- 
trines of  Friends  as  I  understand  them,  and  do  not  desire  to  be  un- 
derstood as  speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  a  hostile  critic. 

The  second  cause  of  our  failure  to  inaugurate  and  push  forward 
an  energetic  and  vigorous  campaign  against  the  war  system  is  to  be 
found  in  the  misunderstanding  or  perversion  or  misapplication  of 
some  of  our  favorite  doctrines.  Any  truth  may  be  exaggerated  or 
extended  beyond  proper  limits,  and  thus  become  grave  and  even 
fatal  error.  And  the  most  spiritual  truths  seem  most  liable  to  this 
abuse.  Take  the  doctrine  of  peace  itself  which  we  have  met  to 
consider.  I  am  not  at  all  certain  but  that  Friends  have  carried  their 
opposition  to  carnal  warfare  to  such  extremes  that  they  have  made 
it  apply  even  in  the  spiritual  realm  as  well;  and  that  practically 
they  have  become  so  peaceful,  so  inoffensive,  that  they  are  even  op- 
posed to  an  energetic,  uncompromising  warfare  in  favor  of  truth. 
It  is  supposed  that  we  belong  to  the  general  Church  Militant  on 
earth,  that  though  the  weapons  of  our  warfare  are  not  carnal  but 
spiritual  they  are  mighty  through  God  to  the  pulling  down  of 
strongholds,  and  that  we  are  engaged  in  actual  contest  against  the 
powers  of  darkness  and  sin. 

The  Christian  life  is  a  warfare  and  we  are  not  to  allow  our  dis- 
belief in  the  use  of  carnal  weapons  to  dull  the  edge  of  our  opposi- 
tion to  error  and  wickedness,  nor  are  we  to  slacken  our  ardor  for 
truth  from  fear  we  may  incur  somebody's  displeasure. 

Friends  have  never  been  in  danger  perhaps  of  committing  the 
error  of  the  man  in  the  story  who  wanted  peace  so  much  that  he 
expressed  himself  as  being  determined  to  have  it,  even  if  he  had  to 
fight  for  it. 

The  doctrine  which  has  above  all  others,  perhaps,  distinguished 
Friends  is  that  of  the  immediate  influence  and  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.    It  has  always  been  regarded  by  us  as  a  particularly  sacred 


171 

tiuth.  It  is  the  sine  qua  non  of  our  theology;  and  yet  it  is  particu- 
larly open  to  misconception  and  misapplication. 

I  doubt  if  there  has  been  any  mistake  from  which  we  have  suf- 
fered more  in  our  peace  work  and  our  work  along  other  lines  than 
from  the  wrong  notions  we  have  entertained  concerning  this  doc- 
trine. 

In  the  first  place,  this  claim  to  immediate  revelation  has  devel- 
oped a  tendency  amongst  us  to  exaggerate,  if  I  may  use  a  term  so 
strong,  the  supernatural  element  in  moral  and  religious  matters, 
and  has  led  us  to  depreciate  and  discredit  the  ordinary  means  and 
methods  by  which  desirable  ends  may  be  promoted.  Too  exclusive 
dependence  upon  divine  guidance  and  wisdom  may  lead  to  a  neg- 
lect of  the  natural  processes  of  reaching  judgments  and  determining 
right  causes  of  action. 

I  fear  we  have  been  so  jealous  of  this  doctrine  that  we  have  been 
wont,  at  least  in  the  past,  lo  look  with  distrust  upon  superior  natu- 
ral endowments,  and  especially  to  regard  intellectual  culture  and 
training  as  dangerous  because  incompatible  with  deep  spirituality. 
In  matters  of  a  purely  secular  nature  we  try  in  all  our  undertakings 
to  adapt  the  means  to  the  end  to  be  accomplished.  We  study  the 
case  in  order  to  discover  its  nature  and  difl&culties.  No  use  of  our 
powers  of  observation,  of  investigation,  of  analysis,  of  reasoning, 
appears  to  us  out  of  place  in  such  a  matter.  We  know  that  such  a 
method  of  procedure  is  immeasurably  better  than  dependence  upon 
momentary  impulses  or  fortuitous  circumstances. 

When  we  come  to  matters  religious  or  moral  we  throw  aside  our 
common  sense,  discard  ordinary  methods  and  especially  disclaim 
any  use  of  our  rational  faculties,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  in- 
adequate to  these  higher  purposes.  This  may  be  quite  true,  but  it 
does  not  follow  because  the  natural  powers  are  insufficient  that  they 
are  therefore  useless.  They  are  to  be  supplemented,  not  superseded, 
and  only  when  we  have  exhausted  ordinary  means  for  accomplish- 
ing noble  ends  and  aims  have  we  any  reason  to  expect  the  extraor- 
dinary and  supernatural  to  be  supplied.  The  two  are  in  no  way  an- 
tagonistic, but  harmonious.  Abuse  of  this  doctrine  has  led  to  many 
false  notions  concerning  things  sacred  and  profane.  There  is  really 
no  ground  for  the  distinction  so  often  made  in  the  minds  of  many 
between  the  ordinary  and  natural  forces  and  what  may  be  termed 
spiritual  forces  so  far  as  their  sacredness  is  concerned.  They  both 
have  the  same  origin  and  both  are  doubtless  equally  approved  for 
the  specific  purpose  for  which  they  were  intended.  I  think  our 
false  ideas,  therefore,  of  immediate  revelation  have  led  us  into  too 
exclusive  dependence  upon  what  may  be  termed  extraordinary 
means  and  to  the  consequent  neglect  of  those  ordinary  means  and 
appliances  that  may  be  used  to  influence  men's  minds  and  conduct. 
We  have  been  so  afraid  of  "  creaturely  activity  "  even  in  matters  of 
moral  and  social  reform  that  we  have  not  made  a  proper  use  of 
those  natural  powers  and  forces  that  may  be  legitimately  used  un- 


1T2 

der  all  circumstances  for  the  promotion  of  right  ideas.  Behind  the 
dogma  of  the  utter  worthlessness  of  mere  human  effort  undirected 
by  divine  guidance  we  have  taken  refuge  until  it  has  become  a  stock 
excuse  for  chronic  inactivity  and  shirking.  If  man  is  something 
more  than  a  mere  automaton,  if  he  is  a  creature  endowed  with  re- 
sponsibility, then  the  very  possession  of  powers  of  reasoning  and 
persuasion  is  a  sufficient  warrant  for  the  exercise  of  these  faculties 
in  behalf  of  righteousness  and  truth. 

Again,  the  idea  of  personal  responsibility  growing  out  of  the 
doctrine  of  divine  guidance  has  led  to  the  development  of  an  ex- 
treme individualism  amongst  Friends,  which,  while  it  has  promoted 
individual  initiative  and  action,  has  not  been  favorable  to  con- 
certed, harmonious  and  systematic  effort  of  the  Church  as  a  whole. 
In  its  very  nature  it  is  unfavorable  to  that  deliberative  study  and 
discussion  of  means  and  methods  necessary  to  secure  organized  and 
systematic  co-operation  along  a  pre-determined  line.  Until  recently 
such  a  thing  as  a  Conference  like  this  was  almost  wholly  unknown 
amongst  us.  Consequently  we  have  had  no  well-matured  plans,  no 
systematic  organization  for  carrying  on  a  vigorous  and  persistent 
propaganda  for  the  abolition  of  the  war  system  and  the  introduc- 
tion of  less  brutal  and  more  rational  methods  of  settling  differences. 
Our  efforts  have  been  individual  and  sporadic.  We  have  lacked 
that  cohesion,  that  esprit  de  corps,  necessary  to  united,  well-consid- 
ered and  harmonious  action.  We  have  failed,  therefore,  to  wield 
that  influence  that  comes  from  a  compact  organization.  My  time 
limit  is  reached.  I  can  only  add  that  I  trust  that  this  Conference 
may  mark  the  dawn  of  a  better  day,  when  we  shall  work  more 
unitedly  and  more  effectually  for  the  promotion  of  this  great  cause. 

The  Chairman:  The  next  paper  to  be  presented  is  on  the  sub- 
ject, "  The  Duty  of  the  Christian  Church  at  the  Present  Time  in 
the  Movement  to  Abolish  War,"  and  will  be  read  by  Henry  W.  Wil- 
bur, of  New  York  city,  who  has  now  arrived. 

THE    DUTY    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    AT    THE 

PRESENT   TIME   IN  THE  MOVEMENT 

TO  ABOLISH  WAR. 

BY  HENRY  W.  WILBUR,  EDITOR  OF  THE  "  YOUNG  FRIENDS'  REVIEW," 

NEW  YORK  CITY. 

To  speak  a  word  in  the  line  of  the  topic  of  this  paper,  without 
being  censorious  or  rancorous,  will  not  be  easy,  and  may  be  impos- 
sible. If  the  purpose  so  to  discuss  the  question  is  not  even  approxi- 
mately realized,  it  will  not  be  on  account  of  the  unwillingness  of 
the  spirit,  but  because  of  the  weakness  of  the  flesh,  provoked  by  the 
evidence  of  an  unchristian  and  warlike  temper  exhibited  in  the 
name,  but  against  the  fame,  of  the  Church. 


1?3 

Accurate  and  accepted  definition  will  make  a  good  foundation 
upon  which  to  build  the  fabric  of  orderly  statement  and  logical, 
dispassionate  discussion. 

A  Christian,  as  the  dictionary  describes  him,  is  "  One  who  be- 
lieves in  the  religion  of  Christ,  especially  one  whose  inward  and 
outward  life  is  conformed  to  the  doctrines  of  Christ." 

According  to  the  same  authority  a  church  is  "  A  formally  or- 
ganized body  of  Christian  believers  worshipping  together." 

Having  found  out  what  a  Christian  is,  and  that  a  church  is  sim- 
ply men  and  women  of  the  specified  exalted  character  banded  to- 
gether, it  is  in  order  to  ask.  What  is  the  duty  of  these  collective 
Christians  to-day  in  the  movement  to  abolish  war? 

Manifestly  the  answer  to  that  question  will  depend  upon 
whether  war  ought  to  be  abolished  at  all.  If  the  battlefield  is  a 
sort  of  training  school  for  teaching  the  Christian  graces;  if  it  devel- 
ops a  measure  of  love  and  a  line  of  activity  which  will  give  the 
Church  a  stronger  grip  upon  the  hearts  of  men,  then  the  Church 
should  become  a  recruiting  office,  and  the  individual  Christian  a 
man-of-war. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  war  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  teaching 
of  the  Gospel;  if  it  destroys  rather  than  conserves  life;  if  it  inspires 
hate  of  one's  fellows,  to  say  nothing  about  his  enemies,  then  war 
ought  to  be  abolished,  every  Christian  ought  to  be  an  abolitionist, 
and  the  Church  a  universal  peace  society,  chanting  the  song  of  the 
angels  as  it  promotes  peace  on  earth  and  goodwill  among  men. 

The  dictionary  definition  of  war  is  all  too  brief  and  technical 
to  describe  the  bloody  issue  involved  in  what  is  called  "  A  contest 
between  nations  or  states  carried  on  by  force  of  arms."  To  deter- 
mine whether  war  comports  with  Christian  teaching  we  shall  need 
to  understand  what  inspires  it,  what  sort  of  conduct  characterizes 
its  progress,  what  effect  it  has  upon  those  who  engage  in  it. 

Considered  in  the  light  of  common  sense,  war  is  the  old  feeling 
of  personal  vengeance  transferred  to  and  practiced  in  public  affairs 
— the  law  of  Moses  followed  by  the  nations  as  against  the  law  of 
Christ.  It  is  national  savagery,  the  tooth  and  claw  spirit  exhibited 
in  government;  the  brute  made  manifest  in  collective  human  na- 
ture; an  exhibition  of  the  primitive  and  undeveloped,  recognized  as 
unchristian  in  personal  human  nature. 

Two  nations  have  a  misunderstanding;  they  fancy  that  the 
crooked  path  will  l)e  made  straight  and  the  obscure  way  plain,  if 
the  way  is  lined  with  death  and  the  path  strewn  with  devastation. 
When  the  end  of  the  carnage  comes;  when  the  strife  has  burned  it- 
self out  in  the  besom  of  destruction;  when  one  side  has  been  im- 
poverished as  to  its  cash,  and  decimated  as  to  its  manhood,  and 
must  sue  for  peace,  the  nation  which  has  inflicted  the  greatest  dam- 
age, and  piled  up  the  largest  number  of  the  adversary's  dead,  flat- 
ters itself  that  this  horrible  evidence  is  proof  positive  that  its  quar- 


174 

rel  was  just.  The  condition  would  be  ludicrous  were  it  not  so 
tragic. 

The  picture  has  not  been  overdrawn.  No  artist  ever  wielded  a 
brush  dipped  in  colors  adequately  scarlet  to  tell  the  whole  sad  story 
of  carnage  over  which  the  god  of  battles  presides.  But  false  educa- 
tion and  unchristian  ideals  have  warped  the  human  Judgment  and 
calloused  the  conscience  until  the  clear  vision  of  the  Son  of  Man 
does  not  illumine  the  understanding. 

Hosea  Bigelow's  statement,  "  As  for  war  I  call  it  murder/'  will 
meet  the  witness  of  the  sober  second  thought  in  the  minds  of  most 
men.  "  Learning  and  art,  and  especially  religion,  weave  ties  that 
make  war  look  like  fratricide,  as  it  is,"  says  Emerson,  and  the  sen- 
timent meets  with  a  hearty  amen  in  many  quarters.  But  wars  come 
and  go  in  the  main  because  sentiment  is  not  crystallized  into  con- 
viction and  organized  into  public  conduct. 

We  are  not  considering  the  topic  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
past,  but  of  the  present.  The  anthropomorphic  literalism  of  the 
ancient  Jewish  theologians  need  not  hamper  us.  Their  dim  percep- 
tion conceived  of  the  Almighty  as  a  man  of  war  and  a  god  of  bat- 
tles; but  the  spirit  of  the  new  dispensation,  the  religion  of  life  and 
love  which  the  Master  established  and  the  spirit  of  truth,  first  pure 
and  then  peaceable,  which  he  left  as  a  legacy  to  his  disciples  for  all 
time,  does  not  admit  of  the  life-destroying  trade  of  war. 

The  human  imagination,  whether  Pagan  or  Christian,  at  all  fa- 
miliar with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  or  the  wayside  ministry  of 
Jesus,  has  never  conceived  him  playing  the  role  of  warrior.  His  ar- 
mament can  never  be  more  carnal  than  the  sword  of  the  Spirit;  his 
feeling  for  men  less  than  a  race-including  love.  It  is  idle,  therefore, 
to  spend  time  proving  that  the  Prince  of  Peace  was  not  a  warrior, 
or  that  war  cannot  exist  when  that  perfect  law  of  liberty  which  he 
brought  to  light  prevails. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  we  are  not  considering  the  third, 
the  eleventh  or  the  sixteenth  century,  but  the  twentieth.  We  are 
confronted  with  duty  as  magnified  in  the  lens  of  the  larger  light 
and  liberty  of  two  thousand  years  of  accumulated  Christian  experi- 
ence. The  present  concern  is  not  condemnation  of  the  wars  of  the 
crusades,  but  the  abolition  of  war  to-day. 

We  are  now  face  to  face  with  a  query:  What  can  the  Christian 
Church  do  and  what  ought  it  to  do  to  assist  every  effort  looking 
towards  the  abolition  of  war?  Manifestly  it  can  become  a  potent, 
practical  moral  force  in  the  world,  as  well  as  stand  for  a  distinct 
type  of  theology.  It  can  put  forth  a  concerned  and  consistent  effort 
to  make  real  the  practical  gospel.  It  can  stand  at  the  parting  of 
the  ways  and  plead  for  peace,  while  it  does  its  best  to  displace  the 
war  spirit  which  delights  to  destroy  life,  by  the  brotherly  spirit 
whose  meat  and  drink  is  to  preserve  and  protect  life. 

The  world  needs  a  vast  deal  of  teaching  regarding  right  prin- 
ciples.   Centuries  of  combat  have  left  the  race  possessed  of  monu- 


175 

mental  errors  and  manifold  subterfuges.  War  has  always  been  the 
practice  of  the  nations  under  provocation,  and  the  supposition  is 
that  what  always  has  been  always  will  be.  But  that  is  simply  one  of 
the  world's  misconceptions.  It  has  been  the  misnomer  of  the  con- 
servative and  the  axiom  of  the  advocates  of  things  as  they  are,  ever 
since  the  spirit  of  procrastination  began  to  oppose  the  spirit  of 
progress. 

The  Church  is  admirably  equipped  to  assist  in  the  removal  of 
this  misconception.  Her  own  history  has  been  a  constant  evidence 
that  established  custom,  hoary-headed  habit,  the  beaten  track  of 
conservatism,  does  not  constitute  the  divinely-appointed  order  of 
social,  moral,  intellectual  and  spiritual  progress.  The  Church 
should  teach  the  possibility  of  a  growth  in  grace,  not  a  permanency 
for  disgrace;  an  evolution  in  righteousness,  not  a  seK-satisficd  con- 
tent with  partial  accomplishmment,  low  ideals,  and  the  notion  that 
any  condition  less  than  perfection  has  been  blessed  with  everlasting 
life.  The  Church  should  labor  to  remove  the  misconceptions  and 
misnomers  of  the  ages. 

One  of  the  world's  misconceptions  is  that  the  spirit  of  peace  is 
effeminate;  that  to  fight  is  manly,  and  to  refrain  from  a  quarrel 
provoked  by  brutality  is  to  play  the  coward's  part.  The  Church 
should  teach  manliness,  that  manliness  which  has  the  manliness  of 
the  Master  as  a  model,  and  there  was  nothing  effeminate  about  that. 
Wlio  has  ever  dreamed  that  the  calm,  consistent  manliness  which 
did  not  demur  at  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  which  marched  unflinch- 
ingly to  the  cross  and  Calvary,  was  cowardly? 

It  is  better  to  dodge  the  blow  of  the  bully  than  to  sink  to  the 
level  of  the  bully  by  paying  him  off  in  kind.  That  is  peace  for  the 
man  personally,  and  peace  with  honor  just  the  same.  It  is  better  for 
the  nation  to  let  provocation  real  or  imaginary,  evaporate  in  the 
crucible  of  diplomacy;  to  invoke  the  delay  of  the  sober  second 
thought,  than  to  resent  injury  on  sight,  and  resort  to  the  nonsensi- 
cal philosophy  that  two  calamities  make  a  blessing.  That  is  peace 
for  men  publicly  as  a  nation. 

What  better  business  can  the  Church  be  in  than  teaching  the 
young  people,  and  the  old  people  for  that  matter,  for  whose  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness  she  is  responsible,  the  simple  duty  of  ruling 
one's  own  spirit.  Peace  is  the  product  of  thoughtfulness,  of  rea- 
son, of  self-control;  war  is  the  offspring  of  passion — the  first  flash 
of  hate  in  the  powder  pan  of  anger.  A  better  motto  over  the 
church  door  than  "  Eemember  the  Maine  "  is  the  words  of  Habak- 
kuk,  "  In  wrath  remember  mercy.'' 

Among  the  subterfuges  which  obscure  the  world's  thinking 
none  are  more  vigorously  or  viciously  pushed  than  the  notion  that 
national  grandeur,  greatness  and  permanency  rest  upon  military 
power  and  prestige;  that  the  nation  which  will  not  or  cannot  fight 
shall  surely  die,  if  it  is  not  already  dead.  This  view  of  the  case  has 
been  tremendously  exaggerated  and  distorted,  until  the  conclusion 


176 

has  been  almost  reached  that  the  one  essential  of  national  perma- 
nency is  a  military  footing,  and  that  the  breath  of  a  healthy  na- 
tion's nostrils  is  the  spirit  of  war. 

Yet  we  have  a  standing  refutation  of  this  monstrous  folly  before 
our  eyes.  It  is  only  about  three  hundred  years  since  the  mighty 
Philip  II.  passed  away  from  earth,  and  ever  since  that  time  Spanish 
history  has  been  marching  backward,  and  fighting  vigorously  all 
the  while  in  the  midst  of  retreat.  Spain  did  not  go  to  pieces  and 
lapse  into  weakness  because  she  forgot  how  or  became  afraid  to 
fight.  Her  history  illustrates  the  essential  fallacy  which  inheres  in 
many  of  the  theories  which  men  advance  to  account  for  the 
grandeur  and  stability  of  nations.  With  no  lack  of  bravery  in  bat- 
tle; with  a  loyalty  to  the  power  ordained  in  government  which  al- 
most amounted  to  adoration;  with  reverence  for  religious  authority, 
which  is  one  of  the  most  mighty  cohesive  forces  in  the  world;  with 
all  this,  Spain  has  decreased  from  being  a  national  giant,  until  now 
she  is  one  of  the  puniest  pigmies  among  the  European  Powers. 
Evidently,  the  calculating  machine  of  the  materialistic  ready-reck- 
oners in  national  affairs  has  slipped  a  cog.  There  seems  to  be  some- 
thing necessary  to  national  growth  finer  than  force,  and  without 
which  force  is  unavailing. 

The  magnificent  machinery  of  the  Church  ought  to  be  steadily 
employed  in  teaching  the  truth  regarding  the  forces  and  factors 
which  make  for  national  strength,  because  they  tend  to  purity  and 
peace. 

Among  the  stumbling-blocks  to  the  Christian's  constant  and 
consistent  testimony  in  behalf  of  peace  is  the  dwarfed  and  stilted 
notion  of  patriotism  constantly  pressed  upon  him  by  the  preachers 
of  his  Church,  the  politicians  of  his  choice,  and  the  party  paper 
from  which  he  gets  his  intellectual  pabulum,  and  his  civic  and  often 
his  moral  ideas.  "  My  country,  right  or  wrong,"  is  this  shibboleth, 
and  he  concludes  that  that  means  that  his  citizenship  must  endorse 
what  his  manhood  repudiates. 

An  analysis  of  his  shibboleth  would  take  away  all  of  its  sting, 
and  the  power  it  has  to  enslave.  Of  course  a  man's  country  is  his, 
good  or  bad,  just  as  his  body  is  his,  black  or  white.  He  had  no 
power  to  choose  the  place  of  his  birth  or  the  color  of  his  skin.  But 
that  does  not  mean  that  the  citizen  shall  rejoice  when  his  country 
goes  wrong.  His  business,  on  the  other  hand,  is  to  contribute  the 
effort  and  the  influence  which  shall  at  least  tend  to  make  his  coun- 
try right.  He  may  love  it  when  wrong,  but  the  test  of  his  loyalty 
as  a  citizen  in  the  State  and  a  Christian  in  the  Church  is  that  he 
shall  then  love  it  in  sorrow,  and  labor  with  an  eye  single  to  its  se- 
cured righteousness. 

May  we  not  learn  another  lesson  from  Spain,  the  finished  pro- 
duct of  bald  conservatism  and  blind,  unthinking,  parrot-like  devo- 
tion? Buckle,  the  historian,  says:  "Loyalty  and  superstition,  rev- 
erence for  their   clergy,  were   the   leading  principles  which  influ- 


177 

enced  the  Spanish  mind  and  governed  the  march  of  Spanish  his- 
tory." Leaving  Buckle,  may  we  not  conclude  that  time  has  shown 
that  mere  loyalty  to  a  machine  is  not  the  stuff  of  which  enduring 
national  character  is  made?  Loyalty  that  is  simply  blind  endorse- 
ment of  the  powers  that  be,  though  they  be  diabolical,  has  killed 
more  civilizations  than  it  has  cured.  We  are  living  in  an  age  of  the 
world  when  moral  quality  and  the  ability  to  discover  and  apply  new 
principles  are  the  things  that  count.  What  the  nations  need  to-day 
worse  than  standing  armies,  or  steel-plated  cruisers,  or  submarine 
destroyers,  is  conscience.  The  duty  of  the  Christian  Church  is  to 
inspire,  educate  and  make  tremendously  alive  the  constructive  con- 
science. 

The  progress  of  civilization  and  the  history  of  Christianity 
prove  conclusively  that  free  government  is  the  product  of  original- 
ity in  thinking  and  liberty  of  expression.  The  government  cannot 
be  benefited  by  the  progressive  spirit  of  its  individual  parts  unless 
they  express  themselves.  No  government  will  progress  in  right- 
eousness if  its  citizens  approve  its  wrongdoing.  For  the  citizen  to 
tell  the  government  when  he  thinks  it  is  wrong  is  not  treason,  but 
concerned  patriotism.  Anglo-Saxon  civilization  would  have  gone 
down  hill  with  Spain  had  it  not  stood  for  progress,  encouraged 
growth  and  conferred  the  power  of  initiative  and  the  privilege  of 
reform  upon  its  individual  citizens.  The  Church  is  a  moulder  of 
citizens.  She  ought  to  teach  an  independent  and  progressive  rather 
than  a  parrot-like  and  thoughtlessly  acquiescent  patriotism.  In 
short,  she  ought  to  make  of  every  man  and  woman  a  force  for  social 
righteousness,  and  every  voter  an  advocate  of  peace,  even  in  the 
midst  of  war  and  the  political  vituperation  which  war  engenders. 

The  Church  has  the  right,  and  it  is  her  duty  to  demand  that 
her  generally  and  specially  retained  advocates  shall  not  misrepre- 
sent the  Christian  ideals.  When  the  jingoes  in  and  out  of  Con- 
gress, in  the  spring  of  1898,  were  bombarding  an  unwilling  Presi- 
dent to  begin  war  with  Spain,  some  of  the  heaviest  cannonading 
came  from  the  pulpits  of  the  country,  and  the  exhortation  in  be- 
half of  blood-letting  is  still  the  speech  of  not  a  few  of  those  who 
declare  that  they  are  "  ambassadors  for  Christ." 

A  few  months  ago,  when  the  President  of  the  United  States 
was  stricken  by  the  bullet  of  an  assassin,  the  most  vehement  regrets 
that  lawless  personal  vengeance  was  not  summarily  visited  upon  the 
murderer  came  from  supposed  teachers  of  Christian  ethics,  occupy- 
ing some  of  the  popular  pulpits  in  the  land. 

The  champion  defender  of  the  looting  practiced  by  the  armies 
of  the  Christian  allies  during  the  late  unpleasantness  in  China 
holds  the  parchment  of  an  ordained  minister  and  the  brief  of  a 
Christian  missionary.  Examine  the  authoritative  declarations  of 
Dr.  Gilbert  Reed  regarding  this  matter.  On  page  583  of  "  The 
Forum "  for  Seventh  month,  1901,  Dr.  Reed,  in  writing  about 
"  The  Ethics  of  Loot,"  said: 


178 

"  For  the  crime  thus  committed  by  the  instigation  of  the  Man- 
chu  court,  it  seemed  at  the  moment  that  no  punishment  could  be 
too  severe.  '  Eaze  the  city  to  the  ground!'  ''Burn  the  palace!' 
'  Let  ruins  mark  the  site  of  the  greatest  crime  of  the  century,  and 
prove  a  warning  to  coming  centuries.'  I  am  not  sure  in  the  new 
moments  of  reflection  .  .  .  but  that  the  first  thought  if  carried  out 
would  have  been  for  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number.  As 
a  mild  modification  of  such  drastic  proposals  there  grew  up  the  ro- 
mantic system  of  looting." 

On  page  584  of  the  same  magazine  Dr.  Eeed  thus  delivers  him- 
self: 

"  A  somewhat  similar  mode  of  looting  was  that  of  entering 
houses  other  than  those  occupied,  and  taking  the  best  that  could  be 
found.  Old  resident?  of  Pekin  not  only  knew  where  the  wealth  was. 
but  generally  distinguished  between  the  Chinaman  who  was  a 
friend  and  him  who  was  a  foe.  For  the  former  they  sought  protec- 
tion; from  the  latter  loot.  Personally,  I  regret  that  the  guilty  suf- 
fered so  little  at  my  own  hands." 

To  make  the  efforts  of  loot  doubly  sure,  in  the  North  China 
Herald  of  Third  month,  1901,  the  same  Dr.  Reed  said: 

"  Now  and  then  I  branched  out  to  loot  from  those  who  were 
our  enemies,  and  I  only  regret  I  didn't  have  more  time  to  loot  from 
such  despicable  wretches,  instead  of  leaving  so  much  to  others,  in- 
cluding not  a  few  loot  critics.  If,  however,  those  from  whom  I  have 
looted  want  their  things  back  let  them  meet  me  face  to  face  and  I 
will  *  take  the  matter  into  consideration.'  " 

The  point  is  that  the  duty  of  the  Church  is  to  assist  in  the  aboli- 
tion of  war,  which  engenders  in  men  such  unchristian  character, 
and  while  she  is  doing  that  she  should  insist  that  her  representa- 
tives do  not  misrepresent  her. 

Made  up  of  the  disciples  of  the  Great  Teacher,  the  Church  can- 
not in  consistency  do  less  than  teach  the  Christian  ideals  regarding 
personal  conduct  and  public  policy.  A  prominent  educator  in  a 
recent  magazine  article  said:  "  Our  highest  politics  aim  at  con- 
serving the  arts  of  peace;  our  first  poetic  lessons  are  in  an  Iliad  that 
cannot  be  appreciated  without  a  bloodthirsty  joy  in  killing."  The 
adult  communicants  of  the  Church,  and  the  children  whom  she  is 
educating  to  recruit  her  membership,  demand  at  her  hands  impres- 
sions upon  their  hearts  and  consciences  of  holier  ideas  regarding  the 
tenderness  and  awfulness  of  human  life  than  Greek,  Roman  or 
Norse  heroes  tell  or  teach. 

The  Christian  test  of  valor  and  manhood  is  not  made  on  the 
battlefield,  where  the  very  environment  tends  to  make  one  sell  life 
cheaply.  On  the  contrary,  the  Christian  hero  is  he  who  in  unsel- 
fish devotion  binds  up  the  wounds  inflicted  on  life's  Jericho  road, 
and  helps  emancipate  from  the  servitude  of  sin  a  submerged  hu- 
man spirit.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  Founder  of  the  Church,  the 
Good  Samaritan  is  a  more  ideal  type  of  the  Christian  than  the  great 


179 

soldier.  A  wide  and  expanding  field  of  lahor  looms  iTp  before  the 
Church  at  the  present  time  to  teach  her  own  her  own  truth. 

Perhaps  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  can  he  pressed  into 
a  paragraph.  The  sanest  method  at  the  present  time  to  abolish 
war  is  to  displace  the  war  spirit  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  in  the 
purpose  of  the  nations.  That  is  the  sure  cure  for  the  curse  of 
war.  But  it  may  be  too  slow  and  too  primary  to  suit  the  quacks 
upon  the  one  side,  and  the  impatient  enthusiasts  on  the  other. 
Wliatever  will  help  to  remove  the  war  spirit  will  be  valuable,  and 
the  educational  and  moral  labor  necessary  to  that  end  is  in  the 
direct  line  of  the  duty  of  the  Church. 

There  is  encouragement,  of  course,  in  the  fact  that  the  econ- 
omic drain  involved  in  war  discourages  a  resort  to  it,  and  tends  to 
make  the  nations  slow  to  wrath  when  the  temptation  comes  to  en- 
gage in  battle. 

That  it  is  no  longer  easy  or  desirable  for  nations  about  equally 
matched  to  refer  their  differences  to  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword, 
also  has  its  value  in  the  direction  of  peace.  The  wars  of  the  last 
quarter  of  a  century  have  in  the  main  been  wars  of  the  strong 
against  the  weak,  and  have  demonstrated  the  essential  moral  and 
physical  cowardice  on  the  part  of  the  modem  warriors.  That,  also, 
will  have  the  tendency  to  shame  the  strong  nations  into  the  more 
peaceful  attitude.  Part  of  the  duty  of  the  Church  is  to  discourage 
the  temper  and  conduct  of  the  bully  among  the  nations. 

But  when  we  consider  the  case  in  its  fullness,  and  all  the  ten- 
dencies now  prevailing,  the  center  of  the  movement  to  abolish  war, 
is,  as  has  been  said,  to  displace  the  war  spirit.  That  is  a  task  which 
belongs  to  all  the  educational  processes,  beginning  at  the  cradle  and 
continuing  to  the  end  of  present-world  life.  Producing  that  result 
is  a  large  part  of  the  purpose  permeating  the  genuine  Christian  sys- 
tem, although  it  has  only  to  a  limited  extent  been  taken  up  by  the 
Church.  Manifestly  the  duty  of  the  Church  is  to  be  practically 
and  potentially  Christian. 

The  whole  temper  of  the  present  movement  to  abolish  war 
might  be  changed  for  the  better  if  the  Church  would  use  her  in- 
fluence in  any  practical  and  forceful  way  in  promoting  the  discus- 
sion and  propaganda  of  the  movement.  It  goes  for  the  saying  that 
the  Church  could  discourage  warlike  methods  and  belligerent  lan- 
guage in  treating  the  peace  problem. 

Just  as  all  men  who  criticise  government  are  not  traitors,  so  all 
men  who  have  not  yet  become  peace  advocates  are  not  heathens. 
May  we  not  charitably  consider  them  partially  developed  Chris- 
tians? It  will  be  well  to  remember  that  all  men  have  in  some  par- 
ticular come  short  of  fulfilling  all  provisions  of  the  law  and  the 
gospel,  and  the  blindly  warlike  Christian  is  simply  defective  at  a 
different  point  than  some  of  us.  Christian  sympathy  with  the 
frailties  of  men  lies  at  the  base  of  all  well-regulated  efforts  at  prac- 
tical reform. 


180 

True,  the  progress  towards  peace  has  been  a  snail's  pace,  but 
the  progress  goes  on.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  push  the  car 
of  progress,  not  to  obstruct  it  either  by  her  opposition  or  her  indif- 
ference. 

The  problem  of  peace  touches  our  political  and  public  life,  and 
demands  that  the  Christian  citizen's  relation  to  government  shall 
be  up  to  the  level  of  his  Christian  ideals.  If  the  Church  is  true  to 
the  mark  of  her  high  calling  she  will  lend  a  hand  in  developing 
that  kind  of  citizens. 

From  within  the  circle  of  the  Church,  holier  than  the  French 
cardinal  ever  dreamed,  there  should  proceed  no  curses,  not  even 
for  the  warrior.  Her  function  is  to  inspire  and  uplift,  to  develop 
an  intense  love  for  men,  and  the  life  which  they  possess.  In  this 
atmosphere  the  spirit  of  war  would  die  for  the  want  of  nourish- 
ment. 

But  the  Church  will  not  be  mechanically  lifted  from  her  leth- 
argy. Her  progress  and  her  work  in  the  world  as  a  body  of  collec- 
tive Christians  will  depend  upon  the  extent  to  which  her  individual 
members  follow  the  leading  of  the  Christ-spirit  as  it  speaks  in  their 
hearts,  and  invites  them  to  a  more  abundant  righteousness  and  a 
larger  peace. 

As  the  individual  Christian  follows  this  holy  leading,  the  ambi- 
tions of  the  warrior  and  the  destroyer  will  cease  to  allure  him, 
and  the  promise  which  will  make  his  soul  stretch  its  wings,  and  be 
glad  in  its  strength,  will  be  the  apostolic  declaration,  "  How  beau- 
tiful are  the  feet  of  them  that  preach  the  gospel  of  peace  and  bring 
glad  tidings  of  good  things. 

The  Chaieman:  The  next  is  a  paper  upon  "  The  Makers  of 
Peace,"  by  Dean  Elizabeth  Powell  Bond,  of  Swarthmore  College. 

THE  MAKERS  OF  PEACE. 

BY  ELIZABETH  POWELL  BOND,  DEAN  OF  SWAETHMOEE  COLLEGE,  PA. 

This  conference  must  be  of  the  nature  of  a  prayer.  Our  souls 
are  reaching  out  toward  the  infinite  soul  for  light  and  guidance 
and  help  to  see  how  we  may  be  makers  of  peace.  And  although  it 
may  seem  a  futile  thing  for  a  few  hundred  men  and  women  to  come 
together  for  interchange  and  illumination  of  thought,  still,  our 
hearts  may  glow  with  the  faith  of  Hartley  Coleridge's  lines: 

' '  Far  is  the  time,  remote  from  human  sight, 

When  war  and  discord  on  the  earth  shall  cease  ; 
Yet  every  pi-ayer  for  universal  peace 
Avails  the  blessed  time  to  expedite." 

There  is  on  exhibition  in  this  city  a  powerful  picture  entitled, 
"  The  Conquerors."  It  is  an  epitome  of  the  story  of  war.  Out  of 
the  sombre,  far-away  background  come  the  conquerors  three  abreast 


181 

on  their  great  war  horses.  Caesar  is  in  the  forefront,  with  Rameses 
and  Alexander  on  either  side.  Close  behind  press  Attila  and  Na- 
poleon and  Sennacherib,  and  lesser  conquerors  beneath  their  bar- 
baric and  their  Ciiristian  banners.  Their  "  way  to  glory "  is 
through  an  avenue  of  dead  men  lying  tier  upon  tier  on  either  side. 
In  these  unnumbered  hosts  of  dead  we  may  fancy  "•  the  five  hun- 
dred thousand  chosen  men  of  Israel "  whom  Abijah  and  his  people 
slew  with  great  slaughter;  the  ten  thousand  that  fell  down  at  Na- 
poleon's word  of  command;  the  more  than  ten  hundred  thousand 
slain  in  "  great  Caesar's  "  conquering  marches.  But  "  the  conquer- 
ors "  can  no  more  go  forward.  Death  has  reduced  to  the  ranks 
these  men  of  might;  now,  they  stand,  naked  souls  in  the  presence  of 
the  Supreme  Commander! 

True,  these  conquerors  are  conquered.  But  down  through  the 
ages,  in  the  blood  of  their  sons,  and  their  sons'  sons,  have  come  the 
seeds  of  war  from  their  fatal  sowing!  True,  we  have  not  Ca?sar  and 
Alexander  and  Napoleon;  but  we  have  the  commanders  of  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  still  carrying  on  wars  for  defence,  and  wars 
for  mastery,  and  wars  for  the  spread  of  civilization! 

Said  a  school-master  of  a  preparatory  school,  not  long  ago,  in 
my  hearing:  "  The  work  with  boys  seems  to  me  to  be  very  much 
like  writing  upon  the  sand  of  the  seashore.  You  think  you  have 
made  a  deep  impression  at  some  point,  and  along  comes  a  wave,  and 
it  is  gone."  What  is  true  of  the  schoolboy  seems  hardly  less  true 
of  the  human  race  in  its  preparatory  school  of  this  world's  life. 

A  few  months  ago  I  stood  for  the  first  time  beside  Grant's 
Tomb  on  the  Hudson.  As  I  came  to  the  impressive  structure,  the 
brief  inscription,  the  dead  soldier's  own  words,  "  Let  us  have 
peace  ! "  seemed  to  me  a  message  from  out  some  higher,  purer 
sphere..  It  gave  me  a  strange  feeling  of  translation  into  another 
time  and  place.  Here  was  a  memorial  from  a  grateful  nation  to  a 
military  hero;  an  expression  in  enduring  marble  of  gratitude  for 
service,  in  part,  it  is  true,  with  cannon  and  sword.  And  yet  there 
are  no  emblems  of  war  to  remind  us  of  the  soldier.  The  sculp- 
tured figures  that  seem  only  to  accent  the  fitting  simplicity  of  the 
marble  structure  bear  tbe  olive  and  the  laurel — emblems  according 
well  with  the  eloquent  appeal  of  the  hero,  "  Let  us  have  peace!  " 

Is  there  anywhere  in  the  world  beside  a  monument  to  a  military 
hero,  that  thus  perpetuates  his  cry  for  peace?  Let  us  be  thankful 
that  this  high-water  mark  of  civilization  has  been  reached.  A 
wave  of  militarism  has  gone  over  us,  and  has  swept  away  appar- 
ently the  standards  of  national  righteousness  that  would  express 
themselves  in  such  a  memorial.  Military  heroes  of  this  genera- 
tion will  doubtless  be  commemorated  with  emblems  of  war;  but 
there  stands  the  eloquent  record  in  marble,  that  once  in  our  na- 
tional history,  the  victorious  soldier  pleaded  for  peace! 

War  is  not  an  evil  to  be  legislated  away  any  more  than  small- 
pox.    War  is  a  disease  of  souls,  and  so  long  as  the  germs  of  war 


182 

find  in  the  crudeness  or  selfishness  of  men  the  conditions  for  their 
growth,  so  long  will  armies  recruit  themselves  for  aggressive  war- 
fare upon  the  weak,  or  for  defense  against  the  invasions  of  the 
strong. 

When,  in  1897,  the  war  against  Spanish  rule  in  Cuba  was  threat- 
ening, the  New  York  letter  in  the  Philadelphia  Ledger  said  that 
men  were  tired  of  peace,  that  they  were  blase,  that  they  were  hun- 
gering and  thirsting  for  the  excitement  of  war.  And  it  is  true 
that  men  flocked  to  the  camps  to  make  ready  for  battle,  with  much 
of  the  spirit  of  college  boys  putting  themselves  in  training  for  ath- 
letic contests.  In  monarchical  countries  where  the  power  of  one 
man  is  to  be  maintained;  where  the  exaltation  of  the  King  means 
the  debasement  of  all  other  men  class  by  class,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
the  "  divine  right  of  kings  "  must  intrench  itself  behind  a  standing 
army.  But  within  the  borders  of  a  Eepublic  there  is  every  chance 
for  peace.  Said  Charles  Sumner,  in  1871,  in  his  address  on  the 
duel  between  France  and  Germany:  "All  hail  to  the  Eepublic,  equal 
guardian  of  all,  and  angel  of  peace.  Our  own  part  is  simple.  It  is, 
first,  to  keep  out  of  war;  and,  next,  to  stand  firm  in  those  ideas 
which  are  the  life  of  the  Republic.  Peace  is  our  supreme  voca- 
tion.    To  this  we  are  called." 

What  does  it  mean  that  in  two  decades  after  this  noble  address, 
men  of  this  Eepublic  had  become  tired  of  peace,  blase,  thirsting  for 
the  excitement  of  war!  Must  it  be,  that  like  waves  upon  the  sea- 
shore, tides  of  human  feeling  from  unfinished  human  nature  must 
at  intervals  wash  away  the  foundations  that  seemed  built  upon  ever- 
lasting principles?  Blase  in  this  thrillingly  interesting  world, 
where  scientific  research  is  bringing  us  clearer  glimpses  of  creative 
plans  and  method  and  power;  and  making  us  to  feel  more  and  more 
at  one  with  God!  Thirsting  for  the  excitement  of  war,  when  there 
is  the  glorious  excitement  of  making  two  blades  of  wheat  grow 
where  one  grew  before! 

Do  away  with  war — you  and  I  in  our  greater  or  lesser  places 
in  the  world!  It  is  a  seemingly  hopeless  task  for  the  individual, 
one  here  and  another  there,  to  work  against  the  strongly  in- 
trenched armies  of  the  world.  The  world  believes  in  its  armies — 
it  does  not  believe  in  Christ.  This  is  our  terrible  unbelief:  "  Lord, 
help  thou  our  unbelief!  "  There  is  a  tradition  that  when  the  Egyp- 
tians prayed  to  Osiris  for  release  from  a  plague  of  crocodiles,  deliv- 
erance came  through  the  little  ichneumon  that  diligently  destroyed 
the  eggs  of  the  great  reptiles. 

We  may  not  be  able  to  place  in  our  National  Congress  the  men 
who  would  be  makers  of  peace  in  the  national  councils.  Prompt 
co-operation  with  the  executive  officers  of  the  nation  may  not  turn 
back  the  tide  of  war  that  now  and  again  rises  in  human  history.  It 
may  be  long  years  before  woman  shares  in  the  active  responsibilities 
of  government.  We  cannot  yet  have  her  service  in  that  way  against 
war. 


183 

But  there  is  a  service  that  comes  within  the  power  of  every 
human  being,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  from  the  young  to  the 
aged,  from  the  unlettered  to  the  scholar — the  labor  to  destroy  the 
seeds  of  war.  The  small  seeds  of  war  are  in  human  souls,  forever 
starting  into  life,  forever  striving  for  possession.  The  impulses  of 
selfishness  are  the  seeds  of  war.  Whenever  we  would  seek  our  own 
advancement  at  the  cost  of  some  other  soul,  then  these  seeds  of  war 
quicken  in  their  native  element.  Whenever  we  wantonly  infringe 
upon  our  neighbor's  precious  rights,  in  trade  among  men,  or  in 
social  relations,  these  small  seeds  of  war  respond  with  electric  swift- 
ness, and  strike  root,  to  irritate  and  torment  and  despoil  the  beau- 
tiful possibilities  of  the  day  or  the  year.  Even  the  jangling  of  un- 
tuned nerves  may  be  the  stimulus  of  these  baleful  seeds  into  mala- 
rial growth.  The  makers  of  peace  have  been  named  the  children 
of  God.  In  their  energized  heart  of  love  the  seeds  of  war  wither 
away.  If  we  could  be  loving  enough  in  our  relations  to  men,  no 
seeds  of  war  could  ever  spring  into  bitter  thought  or  hateful  action 
between  man  and  man,  nor  into  cannon-led  battalions  between  na- 
tion and  nation.  Then,  how  the  desert  places  of  life  would  grow 
"ten  thousand  roses  on  forbidding  walls"!  Then,  how  all  the 
energy  that  is  paralyzed  by  discord  and  heart-achings  would  be 
turned  to  the  joyous  doing  of  life's  work.  Then,  would  the  billions 
of  dollars  expended  in  the  last  century's  wars,  be  diverted  from  the 
work  of  destruction,  to  the  work  of  building  up. 

Let  us  cherish  hearts  of  hope  to  measure  the  progress  of  the 
world,  not  by  its  laggard  steps  and  seeming  retrogressions,  but  by 
the  heights  which  it  now  and  then  touches,  and  go  forward  with 
the  unfailing  patience  of  Him  to  whom  a  thousand  years  are  as  a 
day! 

The  Chairman:  We  shall  now  listen  to  an  address  on  "The 
True  Spirit  of  Peace,"  by  Dr.  William  L.  Pearson,  of  Penn  College, 
Iowa. 

THE    TRUE    SPIRIT    OF   PEACE. 

BY  PEOFESSOR  WILLIAM  L.  PEARSON,  PENN  COLLEGE,  IOWA. 

Peace  is  not  simply  a  state  of  pacification.  It  is  not  merely  a 
condition  in  which  conflicts  of  words  and  weapons  have  passod 
away;  nor  does  the  cessation  of  inward  struggle  naturally  issue  into 
peace.  Its  content  expands  beyond  the  definitions  of  the  lexico- 
grapher. ISTeither  do  courts  for  compromise  and  arbitration  usually 
comprehend  it. 

The  peace  of  Christ  and  of  unity  means  all  these,  and  far  more. 
But  neither  the  world  nor  the  church  has  fairly  conceived  it.  Peace 
is  not  negative;  it  is  particularly  positive;  it  is  not  merely  the  ab- 
sence of  conflict,  but  the  prosperity  of  realized  divine  blessing.  In 
nearly  every  apostolic  salutation  after  "  grace,"  by  which  one  en- 


184 

ters  into  the  presence  and  favor  of  God,  "  peace  "  is  the  great  com- 
prehensive blessing  of  life.  In  the  kingdom  of  God,  next  to  right- 
eousness, which  must  forever  be  the  foundation,  peace  with  God  and 
men  is  the  precious,  practical  fruit  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Hence  it  is  that  the  placid  face  and  gentle  manner  do  not  always 
indicate  a  peaceful  spirit,  just  as  a  calm  surface  of  the  sea  does  not 
necessarily  imply  a  quiet  deep  sea.  From  the  springs  of  a  worldly 
or  a  wilful  life  come  up  mire  and  dirt,  even  when  the  restraints  of 
society  and  the  discipline  of  a  better  civilization  apparently  con- 
trol it.  There  is  not  in  it  the  real  peace  that  constitutes  Christian 
self-mastery. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  mind  permeated,  empowered  and  domi- 
nated by  the  Spirit  issues  into  life  and  peace.  Peace  as  God's  gra- 
cious gift  vouchsafed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  adoption  with  favor  into 
the  Heavenly  Father's  family  embraces  all  other  blessings  in  the 
life  of  his  regenerate  and  faithful  children;  and,  according  to  Isaiah 
and  Paul  and  Jesus,  none  others  know  genuine  peace.  "  Peace  " 
was  among  Christ's  last  benedictions  upon  his  disciples  before  his 
death,  and  his  first  blessing  after  the  resurrection  was,  "  Peace  be 
unto  you."  No  other  has  the  prerogative  to  confer  this  blessing, 
supreme  and  peculiar  beyond  all  understanding  in  its  power  to 
guard  heart  and  thoughts,  so  that  one  may  say, 

' '  These  surface  troubles  come  and  go, 
Like  rufflings  of  the  sea  ; 
The  deeper  depths  are  out  of  reach 
To  all,  my  God,  but  thee." 

Thus  we  see  the  genuine  Christian  peacemakers  are  they  who 
have  been  constituted  such  by  Christ  himself.  It  was  his  not  mere- 
ly to  break  down  every  wall  of  partition  and  bring  all  classes  and 
conditions  and  nations  and  races  face  to  face  in  order  to  eliminate 
their  differences;  he  is  not  merely  the  matchless  peacemaker  by 
virtue  of  his  authority  over  men,  but  himself  is  our  peace,  and  con- 
stitutes his  elect  at  once  possessors  of  peace,  and  henceforth  pro- 
claimers  of  God's  peace  and  goodwill  to  men.  Practical  Christians 
are  naturalized  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  grace,  peace  and  assured 
prosperity.  Such  are  "  the  peacemakers  that  shall  be  called  the  chil- 
dren of  God."  One  can  never  be  a  servant  of  the  Prince  of  Peace 
in  the  full,  free  sense  without  possessing  his  Spirit  of  peace,  the 
supreme  satisfaction  that  always  arises  from  the  consciously  ac- 
cepted heavenly  irenicon.  In  the  case  of  Christ,  the  spirit  suffered 
in  Gethsemane  and  sank  on  Golgotha,  when  his  own  right  arm 
might  have  protected  him,  or  legions  of  angels  might  have  been 
summoned  to  his  help.  Too  few  fully  realize  the  fact  that  if  he 
had  not  thus  possessed  himself  in  the  spirit  of  peace,  our  peace 
would  never  have  been  made  possible  by  the  breaking  of  the  bonds 
of  death  and  the  grave;  he  would  never  have  been  the  Prince  of  Life 
and  Peace.  At  a  time  when  furious  factions  sprang  up  in  a  night, 
and  bands  of  zealots  daily  ran  mad,  was  not  the  world  poor,  indeed, 


185 

to  have  only  one  Son  of  Man,  who,  being  empowered  by  the  spirit 
of  peace  within  him  np  to  the  point  of  self-mastery,  could  triumph 
over  evil  and  the  evil  one?  Yet  such  an  one!  King  of  Peace  be- 
cause he  was  King  of  Righteousness,  King  Eternal!  It  was  thus 
that  he,  the  author  of  peace,  is  authorized  both  out  of  the  depths 
of  an  unfathomable  experience  and  with  the  sanctions  of  the  al- 
mighty, loving  Father  to  announce  in  his  own  name,  to  all  sincere 
peace  seekers,  "  Pax  vdbiscum  "  (Peace  be  unto  you). 

We  should  give  encouragement  to  every  honest  effort  towards 
peace,  and  where  the  Church  neglects  God's  gospel  of  peace  it  may 
be  our  duty  to  co-operate  with  even  the  agnostic.  The  heroism  of 
Professor  Virchow  and  his  two  coadjutors,  who  used  annually,  in 
the  face  of  ridicule,  to  offer  in  the  German  Parliament  their  resolu- 
tions looking  to  disarmament,  should  receive  our  hearty  applause. 
And  yet,  we  are  Friends — but  friends  of  Christ  only  if  we  do  what- 
soever he  commands.  In  the  Society  of  Friends  Christ's  word 
ought  to  be  the  voice  of  the  eternal:  "  The  way  to  work  the  works  of 
God  is,  first,  to  believe  on  his  Sealed  and  Sent,  and  to  take  one's 
commission  from  him  for  the  work  of  God."  Only  thus  shall  we 
feed  on  the  Bread  of  Heaven,  know  the  Life  Eternal,  possess  the 
true  spirit  of  peace. 

What  man  may  ever,  in  his  own  name,  assume  the  divine  pre- 
rogative? "Whose  is  the  right  to  bestow  peace  upon  his  fellowmen? 
Can  priest  or  potentate  bestow  the  blessing?  Who  may  thus  exalt 
himself  above  his  kind  and  dictate  the  terms  of  peace?  Rameses  II., 
Israel's  oppressor,  made  conquest  of  Palestine  and  Syria,  and  would 
gladly  have  exalted  himself  to  say  to  a  conquered  world,  "  Peace 
be  unto  you,"  but  in  a  drawn  battle  with  the  Hittite  emperor  he 
met  an  equal  and  was  rescued,  as  he  believed,  from  the  midst  of 
his  foes  by  the  intervention  of  his  god  Anion.  Yet,  he  who  would 
assume  the  exalted  prerogative  over  men,  did  not  hesitate  to  en- 
grave his  own  instead  of  the  name  of  Anion  on  the  tablets  of  vic- 
tory, to  eft'ace  his  god's  in  order  to  insert  his  own  name,  and  even 
to  erect  statues  of  himself  in  the  temples  of  the  gods,  to  take  his 
place  in  the  midst  of  the  Egyptian  trinity.  Somewhat  similarly  a 
modern  Bismarck,  and  then  a  Wilhelm  II.,  after  the  old  king  and 
general  had  constructed  an  empire  by  conflict  and  conquest,  would 
announce  the  Pax  vobiscum  as  umpire  of  the  European  countries, 
declaring  "  The  bayonets  of  all  Europe  point  towar«is  Berlin."  In 
the  same  spirit  many  a  proud  prince  or  august  ecclesiastic  would 
have  peace  on  earth,  along  with  the  universal  sway  of  his  own  will. 

How  wide  the  contrast  between  all  these  and  the  spirit  of  Paul, 
the  first  to  make  conquest  for  Christ  in  Europe!  Differing  Chris- 
tians were  to  "  give  diligence  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
bonds  of  peace,"  in  order  to  "  attain  unto  unity  of  the  faith  and  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God."  Among  differing  races  and 
ranks  of  men,  wherever  and  whenever  disputes  arose,  and  especially 
among  themselves,  the  Christians  "  should  thankfully  welcome  the 


186 

unfailing  arbitration  of  the  peace  of  Christ  in  order  to  the  unity 
of  the  body."  "  Let  the  peace  of  Christ  rule,  arbitrate,  in  your 
hearts,  unto  which  ye  were  also  called  in  one  body,  and  be  ye  thank- 
ful." The  spirit  of  peace  first  seeks  the  divine  equation  in  every 
one's  own  inward  conflict,  and  submits  every  issue  between  men  to 
the  Prince  of  Peace,  remembering  that  "  the  Lord's  servant  must 
not  strive,  but  be  gentle  towards  all."  Hence  it  would  have  been 
entirely  foreign  to  Paul  to  utter  in  his  own  name  among  the  breth- 
ren any  sort  of  Pax  vobiscum.  The  spirit  of  peace  is  impossible, 
as  is  peace  itself,  in  the  would-be  autocrat  peacemaker.  Instead  of 
the  Pax  vobiscum  of  divine  prerogative,  and  unlike  every  autocratic 
ecclesiastic,  this  prince  of  apostles  would  say  to  those  of  like  faith 
with  him,  "Pax  ndbiscum  (Let  us  have  peace)." 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  spirit  of  peace  to  stand  immovable 
upon  the  conceived  will  of  God,  daring  to  do  right,  willing  to  suf- 
fer wrong  rather  than  do  wrong.  Let  us  open  our  eyes  to  the  aw- 
ful fact  of  sin,  with  all  its  fearful  consequences.  The  world  has 
been  and  is  sin-cursed,  and  selfishness,  iniquity,  conflict  and  suffer- 
ing must  obtain  for  some  time  to  come.  "  No  variableness  nor 
shadow  cast  by  turning  "  upon  the  stage  of  diplomacy,  political  or 
ecclesiastical,  can  conceal  such  condition  before  the  increasing  light 
of  God,  and  while  the  twentieth  century  Friend  must  withstand  all 
war  and  war  spirit,  yea,  rather  stand  for  the  coming  Messianic 
reign  of  peace,  as  firmly  as  our  stalwarts  of  the  seventeenth  century 
did,  we  should  be  the  last  people  on  earth  to  become  misled  by 
sweet  sentimentality  on  the  subject.  Events  of  the  last  five  years 
have  compelled  the  advocates  of  peace  to  pause  and  read  the  signs 
of  the  times.  Haply  it  was  only  to  sound  forth  again  to  peoples 
and  rulers  their  appeals  for  peace  and  peaceful  methods,  and  pro- 
test upon  protest  has  gone  up  to  heads  of  governments,  sometimes 
from  labor  unions  and  other  fraternities,  but  slightly  understanding 
the  spirit  and  ideals  of  peace.  This  is  all  only  negative.  But  the 
ardent  advocates  of  peace  must  never  forget  that  their  first  business 
is  to  possess  and  to  proclaim  both  the  Prince  of  Peace  and  his  peace 
evangel,  a  thought  too  often  overlooked  in  times  both  of  continuous 
peace  and  of  exciting  conflict  of  arms. 

And  yet  the  Christian  testimony  contains  more  than  word  or 
deed.  Every  worthy  testimony  is  a  testimony  with  the  spirit;  it  is 
spirit  and  life.  Christ  freely  yielded  up  his  life  to  his  enemies,  for 
his  enemies'  sake,  and  as  freely  commended  his  spirit  to  the  Father 
for  the  Fathers  glory.  It  may  not  be  forgotten  that  he  who  of- 
fered his  life  for  us  also  breathed  his  spirit  upon  us,  and  that  an 
all-sufficient,  soul-satisfying  self-sacrifice  calls  for  an  ever-living, 
suffering  Saviour  realized  in  us  as  touched  with  a  feeling  of  all  hu- 
man infirmities.  Hence  in  the  advancing  revelations  and  experi- 
ences of  a  Paul  and  a  Peter,  the  baptism  and  fellowship  of  Christ's 
sufferings  became  ideal  in  the  higher  phases  of  Christian  life  and 
service.     Christ  ever  has  crowns  for  those  who  will  bear  the  cross. 


187 

but  he  miipt  continuo  to  bear  the  cross  alone  who  will  too 
eagerly  snatch  the  crown.  In  the  sinful,  suffering  world's  conflict 
they  were  to  make  up  that  which  was  lacking,  not  of  the  atoning 
sacrifice,  but  in  the  afflictions  of  Christ  for  the  body's  sake.  The 
royal  son  of  heaven's  and  of  Israel's  king  was  also  the  son  of  the 
Hittite's  wife,  of  a  Moabitess.  of  a  harlot,  and  possibly  of  a  Jezebel. 
It  is  neither  dry  dogma  nor  poetic  fancy,  but  a  fact  of  first  order 
in  the  divine  providence,  that  the  spotless,  suffering  High  Priest 
and  King  "  passed  through  the  heavens  "  to  the  lowest  rung  of  the 
social  ladder,  and  home  again.  Somehow,  in  "  the  light  of  life,"  it 
is  kingly  and  Christlike  to  answer  thus  truth's  call,  and  only  thus 
may  truth  slowly  and  surely  build  upon  and  in  the  foundations  of 
society  and  thence  rise  in  triumphant  grandeur. 

The  London  Meeting  for  Sufferings  is  pre-eminently  the  most 
unique  and  extraordinary  ecclesiastical  body  of  modern  history. 
And  while  the  conditions  in  England  differ  from  those  in  this 
country,  one  only  need  fairly  feel  the  weight  of  war-burden  resting 
upon  many  of  those  meetings  to  fear  lest  the  war-god  may  some  day 
find  the  American  Society  of  Friends  asleep  with  the  weeping  Spirit 
of  Peace  perched  over  her  head. 

May  modern  Friends,  like  Christ  and  Paul  and  Peter,  have  the 
true  spirit  of  peace!  Aye,  more;  we  must  have  it  in  order  to  be 
Christ's  true  peacemakers,  in  order  to  be  the  Friends  our  fathers 
were,  and  under  the  clear  sky  of  the  twentieth  century  we  may, 
must  be,  more  than 

"  Half  our  fathers'  shadows  cast  at  noon." 

We  should  be  taller  and  broader  and  stronger  than  they.  Our 
question  is  only  as  to  the  power  of  the  spirit  of  peace.  Examples 
might  be  multiplied  anywhere  in  the  history  of  the  Society  of 
Friends. 

Let  two  examples  suffice.  When  every  one,  every  ecclesistical 
society  or  political  party  who  dared,  appealed  to  the  sword  with 
the  furious  zeal  of  a  mistaken  divine  authority  to  enforce  his  own 
creed  and  claim,  when  the  first  Friend,  with  hundreds  of  faithful 
followers,  was  spending  one-fourth  of  his  forty  active  years  in 
dreadful  dungeons,  and  much  more  under  dire  persecutions, 
Thomas  Carlyle,  surveying  the  whole  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  spies  out  a  single  figure  of  masterly  Christian  fortitude, 
and  writes:  "  There  is  in  broad  Europe  one  free  man — George  Fox, 
the  greatest  of  the  moderns, — he  looks  heavenward  from  his  earth 
and  dwells  in  an  element  of  mercy  and  worship."  But  this  is  not  the 
whole  of  it.  The  Spirit  of  God,  who  will  conform  all  of  us  into  the 
spirit  of  peace — for  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  is  in  the  bond  of  peace 
— impelled  George  Fox  eagerly  onward  to  proclaim  and  promote 
life  and  peace  among  his  fellows.  Drinking  in  the  elements  of  the 
divine  nature,  the  true  spirit  of  peace  becomes  partaker  of  an  extra- 
ordinary divine-human  benevolence,  the  brotherly  love    which    is 


188 

suffused  and  surcharged  with  the  divine  love  and  obliged  to  find  an 
outlet  in  the  lives  of  men.  It  was  this  spirit  of  peace  which  filled 
and  possessed  William  Penn  and  led  to  the  "  Holy  Experiment," 
whose  real  meaning  is  only  beginning  to  be  fully  felt. 

Finally,  the  gentle,  supremely  courageous,  suffering,  true  spirit 
of  peace  is  a  prophet's  voice  in  the  wilderness,  faithfully  speaking 
forth  the  word  of  the  Lord  until  his  generation  sees  it.  Only  an 
example.  It  was  given  John  Bright  alone  to  speak  the  word  of 
God  in  Parliament  as  to  the  Crimean  War.  More  than  thirty  years 
afterwards,  driving  one  Sabbath  evening  to  the  London  Station  for 
the  last  time,  and  passing  the  monument  upon  which  is  inscribed 
"  Crimea,"  he  remarked,  "  The  '  a '  should  be  transposed,  and  let 
it  read  '  A  Crime.'  "  To  this  all  thoughtful  Englishmen  would  now 
say.  Amen! 

On  my  first  visit,  many  years  ago,  I  first  read  appropriately 
posted  aloft  in  the  bell  tower  of  Independence  Hall  in  Penn's  City 
of  Brotherly  Love,  Longfellow's  lines,  "  Peace  on  Earth,"  which 
shall  fittingly  show  the  prophetic  view  of  the  spirit  of  peace: 

"  Down  the  dark  future,  through  long  generations, 

The  echoing  soiinds  grow  fainter  and  then  cease  ; 
And  like  a  bell  with  solemn  sweet  vibrations, 

I  hear  once  more  the  voice  of  Christ  say,  '  Peace ! ' 
Peace !  and  no  longer  from  its  brazen  portals 

The  blast  of  War's  great  organ  shakes  the  skies, 
But,  beautiful  as  songs  of  the  immortals, 

The  holy  melodies  of  love  arise." 

The  Chairman:  The  subjects  presented  in  the  papers  will 
now  be  open  for  discussion,  and  the  first  speaker  will  be  Amos 
Saunders,  of  Brooklyn. 

Amos  Saunders:  As  I  say  what  I  have  in  mind  I  hope  that  I 
shall  not  be  understood  as  criticizing  our  fathers  of  the  past,  or 
those  of  us  who  are  here. 

It  is  a  sad  fact  to  me  that  we  have  only  one  hundred  thousand 
members  instead  of  one  million.  If  we  had  the  latter  we  might 
go  before  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  and  demand,  whereas 
now  we  have  to  be  simply  suppliants  and  perhaps  receive  in  re- 
sponse the  hint  that  we  are  anarchists. 

There  is  another  sad  fact,  and  that  is  that  we  have  so  few  men 
who  are  capable  of  speaking  to  the  great  crowds  that  gather  in  such 
assemblies  as  the  Christian  Endeavor  National  Conventions  and 
other  places;  that  we  have  not  those  who  can  command  those  im- 
mense audiences  and  declare  for  peace  in  such  a  way  that  the  world 
must  hear.  In  the  large  cities  we  have  so  few  men  that  are  able  to 
move  the  masses  and  lift  men  up  into  the  great  Gospel  of  peace  that 
our  Master  declared. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  need  constructive  work,  beginning  down 
at  the  bottom,  a  constructive  work  that  might  have  been  begun 
years  ago  and  been  felt  to-day.    We  need,  as  I  have  indicated,  in- 


189 

creased  membership,  that  we  may  declare  with  more  positiveness — 
at  least  with  more  force — the  Gospel  of  peace. 

The  statistics  show  that  seventy  per  cent,  of  all  the  people  that 
become  Christians,  become  so  before  they  are  eighteen  years  of  age. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  seventy  per  cent,  or  more  of  those  of  us  to- 
day who  stand  for  the  subject  of  peace,  stood  so  before  we  were 
eighteen  years  of  age.  The  principles  that  we  are  trying  to  carry 
out  were  implanted  in  our  minds  in  childhood.  It  is  not  difficult, 
therefore,  to  see  where  our  field  of  labor  lies.  It  belongs  to  that 
period  in  the  life  of  the  individual  when  he  is  most  susceptible  to 
impressions. 

If,  then,  we  would  be  strong  in  the  future  for  peace,  so  far  as 
numbers  are  concerned,  we  must  reach  and  win  to  our  church  the 
children  and  young  people.  I  know  there  are  some  who  think  that 
it  is  not  numbers  but  character  that  Friends  want.  "  Quality  and 
not  quantity,"  they  tell  us.  Quality  is  good,  but  quality  and  plenty 
of  it  is  a  great  deal  better.  We  need  a  stronger  ministry,  for  the 
proclamation  of  the  Gospel  of  peace.  The  strength  of  the  ministry 
is  planted  in  childhood  and  early  life,  and  is  further  developed  in 
the  college  and  university. 

We  need  men,  as  has  been  indicated  in  this  Convention,  who 
are  able  to  stand  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  with  a  force 
able  to  stem  the  strongest  tide  in  times  when  the  excitement  of  war 
is  on.  It  was  said  the  other  day  that  one  of  the  difficulties  in  get- 
ting men  of  peace  principles  into  Congress  was  the  lack  of  a  con- 
stituency. If  we  had  the  numbers  we  should  have  the  constituency 
that  would  put  men  into  Congress  where  their  voices  could  be 
heard  as  John  Bright's  was  heard  in  the  Parliament  of  England. 

There  are  many  of  us  here  whose  voices  can  be  heard  only  by 
petition;  but  every  one  of  us  is  in  touch  with  childhood  somewhere 
and  can  thus  make  ourselves  heard  in  the  future.  There  has  been 
a  tendency  where  I  have  known  the  Society  to  bring  children  into 
touch  with  our  church  and  its  agencies,  get  them  interested  and 
then  allow  them  to  go  to  other  denominations  to  be  cared  for.  In 
this  way  many  of  them  have  been  led  away  from  peace  principles, 
and  brought  into  the  spirit  and  advocacy  of  war.  If  we  had  put 
them  under  the  training  of  our  own  denomination  and  kept  them 
there,  we  should  have  had  more  men  of  peace  to  stand  for  the  prin- 
ciples and  the  cause  of  peace.  Let  every  individual  of  us  put  forth 
efforts  not  only  that  the  children  of  the  church  may  be  rightly 
taught,  but  that  the  children  that  come  in  contact  with  us  may  be 
brought  in  and  made  lovers  of  peace,  so  that  in  the  years  to  come 
we  may  have  largely  increased  numbers  to  declare  our  principles 
and  render  them  more  effective  in  the  life  of  the  nation. 

RoBEET  E.  Pretlow:  a  number  of  times  during  this  Con- 
vention I  have  thought  of  an  estimate  of  Jesus  Christ  by  two  promi- 
nent Jews  whom  I  have  recently  seen.    Both  of  them  conceived  the 


190 

essential  principle  of  Jesus  Christ  to  be  that  which  we  Quakers 
hold — the  principle  of  love,  of  brotherhood,  of  peace.  One  of  them 
says  the  Jew  rejects  Jesus  Christ  as  a  dreamer,  an  idealist,  because 
this  idea  of  His  good-will  and  peace  is  impracticable  in  a  world  such 
as  ours.  The  other  regards  this  as  the  chief  and  most  beautiful 
point  in  the  character  of  Jesus,  and  says  that  the  light  was  too  daz- 
zling for  His  nation;  they  could  not  stand  the  blaze  of  the  sunlight, 
and  so  rejected  Him.  But  he  closed  with  the  pertinent  query, 
"  Has  Christianity  accepted  Him?  " 

Some  of  our  discussions  have  seemed  to  me  to  echo  a  little  of 
that  first  estimate,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  bringer  of  ideals  and 
dreams,  which  are  exceedingly  delightful  to  contemplate,  but  which 
in  a  world  of  men  are  impracticable.  If  Jesus  Christ's  teaching 
was  true — and  I  do  not  need  to  discuss  its  truth  before  an  audience 
of  Friends — if  the  principles  which  He  enunciated  are  right,  they 
not  only  ought  to  be  obeyed,  they  can  be  obeyed.  Whatever  ought 
to  be  done  can  be  done.  God  does  not  demand  impossibilities  in 
this  world.  It  is  quite  within  the  range  of  possibility  for  those  who 
name  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  not  only  to  have  peace  in  their  per- 
sonal and  social  relations,  but  to  demand  it  in  the  State,  and  get  it. 

Our  attention  has  been  drawn  this  morning  to  some  of  the  fail- 
ures of  Friends.  It  seems  to  me  that  they  have  been  very  perti- 
nently put  before  us.  One  of  our  great  failures  has  been  extreme 
individualism.  We  have  seen  the  vision  of  Jesus  for  ourselves;  we 
have  felt  some  transformation  in  our  own  natures  as  we  have  con- 
templated Him;  and  then  we  have  drawn  the  robe  of  our  sanctity 
about  us,  withdrawn  ourselves,  wrapped  ourselves  up  in  ourselves, 
and  let  society  go  its  way.  We  have  set  ourselves  on  a  pedestal,  as 
the  old  saint  did,  for  the  world  to  gaze  at  as  a  specimen  of  the  best 
and  holiest;  but  we  have  not  got  down  with  Christ's  spirit  among 
men  and  inculcated  that  spirit  among  our  brethren  as  brethren 
among  them. 

The  Friends'  Church,  it  seems  to  me,  needs  a  rejuvenation,  a 
refilling  with  that  old  spirit  that  was  in  Fox  and  Penn  and  other 
early  Friends,  that  made  them  not  content  to  hold  views  themselves 
and  enjoy  them,  but  made  them  sacrifice  the  comforts  of  life,  social 
position,  means,  and  go  out  to  bring  the  truth  to  all  men  every- 
where. Peace  cannot  be  secured  among  men  unless  we  bring  it  to 
them  in  a  living  form.  When  Jesus  Christ  came  to  the  world  He 
found  religion  congealed.  There  was  no  flowing  of  the  spirit  God- 
ward.  Traditionalism  reigned.  When  George  Fox  came,  he  found 
the  world  again  wrapped  up  in  tradition  and  following  what  other 
men  had  thought  and  said  and  done.  I  want  to  ask  the  question  here 
for  our  candid  and  serious  consideration,  whether  the  time  has  not 
almost  gone  for  us  as  Friends  to  keep  talking  about  peace  as  Fox 
and  Penn  saw  it,  and  reviving  what  they  did,  instead  of  bringing 
it  into  living  contact  with  the  affairs  of  this  time  and  this  day. 

It  has  been  brought  out  in  these  discussions  time  and  time 


191 

again  that  there  can  be  no  peace  without  righteousness.  For  us  to 
go  into  the  world  and  simply  make  a  plea,  when  war  breaks  out, 
that  that  war  shall  stop,  that  our  ideas  shall  now  be  put  into  prac- 
tice, and  that  this  particular  piece  of  fighting  shall  cease,  seems  to 
me  short-sighted  and  unwise.  If  the  Friend  longs  for  peace  in  gov- 
ernment, he  must  begin  at  the  root  and  seek  righteousness  in  the 
government  as  the  necessary  antecedent  of  the  peace  which  shall  be 
lasting.  The  Friend  who  withdraws  himself  from  political  activity, 
who  cuts  himself  off  from  his  relations  with  men  in  the  affairs  of 
government,  or  compromises  with  iniquitous  political  machines  and 
condones  and  takes  part  in  things  which  are  in  themselves  ungodly, 
loses  all  possible  influence  for  peace  at  a  later  date. 

Joseph  Elkinton:  We  have  had  the  scourge  of  small  cords 
applied  very  beneficially  and  stiraulatingly  this  morning.  One 
phase  of  the  subject  has  been  sufficiently  dwelt  upon.  I  thought 
it  might  perhaps  be  my  place  to  hold  up  the  other.  We  are  all 
under  bonds  to  this  Conference  to  preserve  sweetness  of  spirit; 
but  peace  of  mind  depends  upon  justice  and  truth  of  statement. 

When  I  think  of  George  Fox  standing  before  Cromwell;  of 
Mary  Fisher  going  to  the  Turk,  hazarding  her  life  in  that  perilous 
journey;  when  I  think  of  Isaac  Norris  on  this  side  handing  up  his 
lonely  vote  against  a  warlike  measure;  when  I  think,  also,  of  John 
Pemberton  and  others  in  the  assemblies  of  the  people  here,  and 
remember  how  Dr.  John  Fothergill  and  David  Barclay  on  the  other 
side  appealed  to  George  III.  not  to  go  into  that  greatest  of  all  mis- 
takes in  the  line  of  war;  when  I  remember  the  history  of  our  So- 
ciety and  what  a  magnificent  record  it  has  made  for  peace,  the 
force  of  fact  is  far  greater  than  the  force  of  words. 

There  have  been  thought  and  action  in  this  generation,  just  as 
truly  as  in  any  before.  Ther:  have  been  in  this  house  to-day  men 
who  have  stood  before  successive  presidents  of  the  United  States 
pleading  that  they  would  not  endorse  any  warlike  measure.  I  have 
looked  upon  their  gray  hairs  with  the  greatest  veneration;  and  I 
know  that  the  spirit  of  the  fathers  is  in  them.  I  know  that  the  ap- 
peals of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  of  this  Yearly  Meeting  have 
gone  out  time  and  again  in  behalf  of  peace,  with  no  uncertain 
sound  and  with  no  uncertain  effect,  ultimately.  I  know  that  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings  in  London  has  done  its  duty,  and  is  doing 
its  duty  now. 

I  know  there  is  indifference  to  this  great  subject  in  our  mem- 
bership, and  I  wish  all  to  be  stimulated  to  do  their  duty;  but  I  be- 
lieve this  duty  is  only  to  be  performed  as  we  have  the  spirit  of  the 
prophets  in  us;  as  we  stand  with  +he  convictions  that  they  had — 
alone,  it  may  be,  sometimes,  but  nevertheless  willing  to  be  alone. 
But  I  believe  that  the  fervor  of  their  spirits  wil  come  down,  has 
come  down,  to  us,  so  that  we  shall  send  our  message  ringing 
through  the  ages,  accumulating  force;  I  doubt  not  it  will  accumu- 


192 

late  rapidly  henceforth;  it  will  not  go  down  with  the  thunders 
of  Sinai;  it  will  not  go  down  with  those  misconceptions  of  our  lov- 
ing Father,  who  has  been  so  long  called  the  God  of  Battles;  but 
it  will  go  down  with  all  the  sweet  reasonableness,  with  all  the  ir- 
resistible persuasiveness  of  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

I  want  these  newspaper  reporters  to  know  that  this  Society  is 
yet  alive,  has  a  testimony  to  bear,  is  bearing  it,  and  if  any  other 
society  in  250  years  has  borne  equally  well  any  such  testimony,  I 
want  to  know  it.  I  do  not  say  this  to  congratulate  ourselves,  but 
to  give  credit  to  the  efforts  of  our  fathers  and  our  forefathers,  and 
to  those  in  this  Conference  who  have  steadily  withstood  up  to  this 
very  time  all  war  measures.  I  believe  if  the  severe  test  of  the  past 
were  again  put  upon  us  to-day,  we  should  stand  it  faithfully,  some 
of  us  at  any  rate.  With  all  deference  to  those  who  have  expressed 
the  view  that  we  have  seriously  failed  in  important  ways,  I  hope 
that  they  will  go  awr.y  from  this  place  knowing  that  there  is  a  liv- 
ing peace  testimony  still  extant  among  us. 

John  B.  Wood:  In  William.  Pearson's  remarks  he  says, 
"  Paul's  testimony  was,  '  Ye  shall  not  strive.'  "  That  word  was  the 
Greek  word  "  fight."  Paul  said,  "  Ye  shall  not  fight."  Of  course, 
the  Christian  translators  had  to  put  it  "  strive,"  because  they  be- 
lieved in  fighting;  but  the  word  in  the  Greek  is  "fight,"  and  not 
"  strive." 

The  Conference  then  adjourned  till  3.30  p.m. 


Etflbtb  Session. 


Seventh-day  Afterxoox,  Twelfth  Month  14th. 

The  Conference  re-assembled  in  Twelfth  Street  Meeting  House 
at  3.30  p.m.  Susan  W.  Janney,  of  Philadelphia,  presided  during 
the  afternoon.     The  session  was  opened  by  a  season  of  devotion. 

The  Chairman:  I  desire  very  briefly  in  the  moment  allotted 
to  me  to  endeavor  to  summarize  and  to  re-sound  a  few  of  the  signal 
notes  of  encouragement  that  have  been  struck  during  the  interest- 
ing sessions  of  the  conference. 

Doubtless  many  of  us  already  find  ourselves  thinking  of  the 
time,  near  at  hand,  when,  this  notable  occasion  concluded,  we  shall 
undergo  individual  questionings  as  to  its  results.  Whither  do  we 
seem  to  be  tending?  Are  we  looking  forward  or  backward; 
towards  a  higher  evolution  of  industrial  civilization,  or  towards  a 
revival  of  "  reactionary  militarism  "  in  our  social  and  political 
life? 

Personally,  I  rejoice  to  believe  that  all  who  go  forth  to  continue 
their  labors  in  the  cause  of  peace  will  have  found  fresh  courage, 
increased  breadth  and  enlightenment,  and  a  renewed  faith  in  pacific 
infiuences  and  conditions  which  have  here  been  so  intelligently  pre- 
sented. 

I  think  it  has  been  clearly  shown  that  the  tendencies  of  civiliza- 
tion are  towards  peace;  that  science,  religion,  commerce,  facility  of 
intercourse,  almost  a  common  literature,  common  friendships  and 
common  interests  are  overcoming  the  antipathies  of  nations,  whose 
interdependence  grows  constantly  more  marked,  and  whose  solidar- 
ity in  great  emergencies  has  noticeably  increased. 

It  has  been  demonstrated,  also,  that  under  modern  political, 
social  and  economic  conditions  the  growing  difficulties  from  the 
very  developments  that  have  taken  place  in  the  mechanism  of  war, 
and  the  unmanageability  of  immense  masses  of  men  mobilized  at 
the  outbreak  of  war,  are  some  of  the  outward  and  visible  signs  of  its 
growing  impracticability. 

The  deepening  sentiments  of  human  brotherhood  and  the  prev- 
alence of  the  conviction  that  upon  the  welfare  of  the  individual  de- 
pends the  elevation  and  the  happiness  of  the  whole,  coupled  with 
the  fact  that  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion  is  more  and  more  ex- 
acting and  more  and  more  deferred  to,  luive  been  dwelt  upon. 

But  if  it  is  true,  as  our  most  ethical  economists  show,  that  the 
elements  contending  in  the  wars  of  the  future  will  be  all  the  moral 
and  intellectual  forces  of  nations,  all  the  modern  civilization,  all 


194 

technical  improvements,  feelings,  characters,  minds,  and  wills — the 
combined  fruit  of  the  culture  of  the  civilized  world — is  not  this 
the  brightest  promise  of  the  future,  the  most  practical  argument  of 
all  against  a  continuance  of  wars? 

It  is  not  a  dream,  not  an  ideal  only,  but  the  result  of  surely  de- 
veloping conditions,  a  stage  in  evolution  which  all  the  spiritual 
God-given  forces  of  man  should  contribute  to  hasten. 

".    .   .    .  There  is  a  story  told 
In  eastern  tents,  when  autumn  nights  grow  cold, 
And  round  the  fire  the  Mongol  shepherds  sit 
With  grave  responses  listening  unto  it : 
Once  on  the  errands  of  his  mercy  bent, 
Buddha,  the  holy  and  benevolent, 
Met  a  fell  monster,  huge  and  fierce  of  look, 
Whose  awful  voice  the  hOls  and  forests  shook. 
'  Oh,  Son  of  Peace !  '  the  giant  cried,  '  Thy  fate 
Is  sealed  at  last,  and  love  shall  yield  to  hate.' 
The  unarmed  Buddha  looking,  with  no  trace 
Of  fear  or  anger,  in  the  monster's  face, 
In  pity  said  :  '  Poor  fiend,  even  thee  1  love.' 
Lo,  as  he  spake,  the  sky-tall  terror  sank 
To  hand-breadth  size ;  the  huge  abhorrence  shrank 
Into  the  form  and  fashion  of  a  dove  ; 
And  where  the  thunder  of  its  rage  was  heard, 
Circling  above  him  sweetly  sang  the  bird  ; 
'  Hate  hath  no  harm  for  love,'  so  ran  the  song, 
'  And  peace,  unweaponed,  conquers  every  wrong.'  " 

The  Chairman:  The  first  paper  of  the  afternoon  is  on  "  The 
Eelation  of  Quaker  Women  to  Peace,"  by  Emilie  TJ.  Burgess,  of 
Highland,  N".  Y. 


!      THE  RELATION  OF  QUAKER  WOMEN  TO  PEACE. 

[  BY  EMILIE   U.   BURGESS,   HIGHLAND,  N.   Y. 

There  is  a  marked  impracticability  in  my  subject.  Quaker 
women  are  less  distinct  from  the  Church  than  the  women  of  any 
•other  religious  organization.  They  are  a  part  of  the  legislative 
body  of  the  Church,  and  of  its  controlling  force.  There  is  none 
the  less  a  peculiar  fitness  in  the  subject,  for  woman  is  the  shaper 
of  destiny — an  appropriateness  in  the  thought  of  the  relation  of 
Quaker  women  to  peace,  for  woman  sets  the  moral  standards,  and 
is  always  found  in  the  reformers'  camp,  even  if  it  be  in  the  foulest 
prisons,  l^lizabeth  Fry  was  told  that  the  women  of  Newgate  would 
attack  her,  and  a  cannon  was  loaded  and  ready  at  the  gate  as  she 
entered,  but  she  declined  all  protection  and  appeared  before  those 
miserable  creatures  like  a  vision  from  a  fairer  world. 

Christian  people  are  grouped  into  organizations  according  to 
their  principles  and  preferences.  The  carrying  out  of  our  prin- 
ciples thus  expressed  naturally  leads  to  an  attainable  ideal  of  broth- 


195 

erhood  and  mutual  helpfulness.  Representing  the  Society  of 
PMends,  I  am  to  touch  briefly  upon  the  relation  which  we  bear  to 
the  whole  Christian  Church  in  common.  Friends  have  never  pro- 
fessed any  separate  theological  or  historical  creed.  There  are  cer- 
tain points  of  Christian  practice  upon  which  we  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  lay  stress.  Certain  "■  testimonies,"  conscientiously 
adopted,  have  been  handed  down  among  us  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration with  jealous  care. 

One  of  the  most  important  and  best  known  of  our  special  testi- 
monies is  that  which  has  been  steadily  borne  by  our  organization 
against  all  war.  Friends  have  ever  maintained  and  acted  upon  the 
belief  that  war  and  strife  of  all  kinds  are  opposed  to  the  spirit  and 
teaching  of  Christ,  and  have  felt  as  his  disciples  precluded  from 
participating  in  them.  They  have  steadfastly  refused  to  take  up 
arms  at  the  bidding  of  human  authority.  That  course  has  brought 
them  at  times  into  collision  with  the  civil  authorities.  To  main- 
tain this  ideal  has  tested  our  strength.  So  long  as  our  country  is  so 
imperfectly  Christianized  we  recognize  that  conflict  may  at  any 
time  arise  between  the  demands  of  our  loyalty  to  the  spirit  of  Christ 
and  our  obedience  to  law. 

We  are  confronted,  of  course,  with  this  question:  Is  the  view  of 
one's  duty  as  held  by  a  religious  body  higher  than  that  of  the  nation 
at  large?  To  abstain  from  participation  in  warfare  is  quite  differ- 
ent from  laying  down  any  general  theory  as  to  the  unlawfulness  of 
war.  We  do  not  blame  those  who  are  acting  in  obedience  to  their 
own  views  of  duty,  however  much  they  may  differ  from  ours.  To 
many  people  war  is  justifiable.  A  fully  Christian  nation  has  never 
yet  been  seen. 

The  question  upon  which  we  Friends  differ  from  other  Chris- 
tians is  not  whether  peace  be  desirable,  whether  it  be  the  goal  of 
political  effort,  but  what  are  the  means  by  which  it  is  to  be  at- 
tained. Other  Christians  agree  with  us  that  quarreling  is  contrary 
to  the  spirit  of  Christ;  but  we  regard  the  opposing  of  violence  by 
violence  as  a  hopeless  method  of  procedure.  Many  others  do  not. 
Our  place  is  surely  to  teach,  not  to  govern,  the  world.  The  world, 
through  Christianization  and  enlightenment,  must  become  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord  and  his  Christ,  before  wars  and  fightings  will 
cease  from  among  men. 

In  the  beginning  of  Christianity  it  was  felt  by  most  believers 
to  be  as  clear  as  daylight  that  "  Christians  cannot  fight."  So  now, 
not  only  among  Friends,  but  in  many  another  Christian  body,  the 
same  spirit  is  working,  and  consciences  are  awakening  to  the  utter 
incompatibility  of  strife  and  retaliation  and  reckless  self-aggrand- 
izement with  the  spirit  of  brotherhood  which  lies  at  the  very 
foundation  of  Christianity.  Frances  E.  Willard  said:  "  We  all  be- 
lieve that  one  of  the  choicest  fruits  of  Christianity  will  be  the 
growth  of  a  bond  of  brotherhood  so  close,  among  all  nations,  races 
and  peoples,  that  we  shall  become  truly  kindred  each  to  the  other, 


196 

and  that  the  great  word  humanity,  like  a  rolling  wave  of  the  ocean 
of  God's  love,  shall  wash  out  from  the  sands  of  time  the  words  caste, 
creed,  sex,  and  even  that  good  word  patriotism,  because  we  shall 
feel  that  the  whole  world  is  our  country  and  all  men  are  our  kin." 
Every  utterance  of  appreciation,  atlection  and  friendship — every 
act  of  co-operation,  every  stroke  of  honest,  hard  work  undertaken 
by  the  side  of  another,  helps  forward  this  beautiful  day  that  we  call 
the  "  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ." 

The  year  1898  was  momentous  in  events  and  experiences.  Beat- 
ing drums  and  booming  cannon  marked  an  occasion  which  was 
termed  "  love  of  liberty/'  as  our  country  tried  to  break  the  shackles 
of  oppression  from  a  neighboring  people.  The  same  year  a  great 
conference  was  called  by  the  Czar  of  all  the  Russias  to  discuss  and 
decide  upon  some  practical  means  of  lessening  the  burdens  and 
miseries  of  war.  It  was  a  wonderful  scene  in  the  House-in-the- 
Wood  at  The  Hague,  when  this  body  of  representative  men,  states- 
men and  diplomats,  gathered  under  the  cupola  of  one  of  the  most 
artistically  decorated  halls  in  the  world,  to  perform  a  task  which, 
if  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  will  win  for  them  the  blessings 
of  untold  generations. 

The  nursing  of  this  new  institution,  the  Permanent  Interna- 
tional Court  of  Arbitration,  and  the  bringing  of  it  into  operation, 
is  our  present  duty.  Just  now  various  influences  are  working 
against  it.  Cannot  our  Quaker  women  do  something  in  this  im- 
portant issue?  Baron  de  Staal,  in  his  farewell  address,  said  of  this 
conference,  which  had  provided  for  this  court,  that  "  the  work 
done,  while  not  as  complete  as  might  be  desired,  was  sincere,  wise 
and  practical."  He  affirmed  that  "in  time  to  come  institutions  which 
had  their  origin  in  the  need  of  concord  would  be  the  dominating 
influence,  and  that  thus  the  work  of  the  conference  was  truly  meri- 
torious." At  the  same  meeting  Dr.  Beaufort  said  that  "  if  the  con- 
ference had  not  realized  Utopian  dreams,  nevertheless  it  had  dis- 
proved pessimistic  forebodings,  and  the  moral  effect  would  more 
and  more  influence  public  opinion  and  governments  to  solve  the 
question  of  the  limitation  of  armaments,  which  still  remains  a 
source  of  grave  consideration  for  statesmen  of  all  countries." 

We  all  lament  that  in  the  closing  years  of  the  last  century  there 
should  have  been  war  and  famine,  massacre  and  pestilence;  still  we 
believe  that  the  nineteenth  century  was  the  best  the  world  has  ever 
known.  In  previous  centuries  there  were  continuous  wars,  duels, 
private  wars.  The  latter  have  now  been  abolished  altogether,  and 
scores  of  cases  of  differences  between  nations  have  been  settled  by 
arbitration.  We  may  confidently  believe  that  we  are  already  far  on 
the  way  toward  the  general  use  of  the  International  Court  of  Arbi- 
tration, now  set  up. 

If  wars  are  allowed  to  continue  in  the  future  the  heaviest  part 
of  the  burden  will  have  to  be  borne  by  women,  as  in  the  past.  They 
suffer  most,  because  they  are  robbed  by  war  of  companionship  and 


197 

support.  We  Quaker  women,  as  part  of  the  jjreat  human  sister- 
hood, are  vitally  concerned  in  this  matter.  Our  profession  lays 
upon  us  a  very  great  duty.  We  think  it  is  hite  in  the  day  to  begin 
arming  and  drilling  boys  in  our  public  schools.  The  arbitrament 
of  reason  instead  of  passion  ought  to  be  a  part  of  our  inextinguish- 
able purpose,  in  order  that  the  good  of  life  may  be  realized  by 
all.  Mothers  prefer  that  their  sons  should  not  bleed  their  lives 
out  on  the  battlefield,  but  should  live  to  enjoy  the  kindly  fruits  of 
the  earth  and  to  help  to  make  it  the  garden  of  the  Lord. 

The  voice  of  the  people  in  this  age  in  all  great  nations  is  what 
directs  the  governments.  The  people  are  learning  slowly  that  the 
"  True  Grandeur  of  Nations  "  consists  in  dealing  fairly  and  patient- 
ly, and  maintaining  long  periods  of  peaceful  years.  The  closing 
words  of  President  McKinley's  address  at  Buffalo  make  doubly  dear 
to  many  the  great  subject  of  peace.  He  said:  "  Our  interest  is  in 
concord,  not  conflict,  and  our  real  eminence  rests  in  the  victories 
of  peace,  not  those  of  war."  The  words  of  President  Grant  to  an 
Eastern  prince  on  the  subject  of  arbitration  are  entirely  in  harmony 
with  the  teachings  of  the  Society  of  Friends:  "Arbitration  between 
nations  may  not  satisfy  everybody  at  the  time,  but  it  satisfies  the 
conscience  of  mankind,  and  must  commend  itself  more  and  more 
as  a  means  of  adjusting  disputes."  We  women  must  use  our  ut- 
most influence  in  the  spheres  in  which  we  move  to  bring  all  the 
people  to  believe  this,  and  to  insist  that  the  government  shall  be- 
lieve it. 

Higher  in  importance  than  our  Houses  of  Congress,  our  public 
institutions,  our  armies  or  navies,  are  the  homes  of  the  nation.  The 
home  is  a  republic  within  a  republic,  a  church  within  a  church,  a 
world  within  a  world.  Study  the  history  of  the  past,  and  you  will 
find  that  no  nation  has  risen  any  higher  than  the  general  level  of 
its  home  life,  and  no  nation  has  fallen  below  that  level.  Lord 
Shaftesbury,  the  greatest  philanthropist  of  his  time,  declared  that 
''  the  direction  of  his  character  and  his  life  was  fixed  by  his  nurse, 
a  devoted  Christian  woman,  before  he  was  seven  years  old."  Abra- 
ham Lincoln  loved  his  mother  so  well  that,  lonesome  little  fellow 
that  he  was,  he  walked  a  long  distance  to  bring  a  preacher  who 
would  pray  at  the  grave,  after  her  body  had  been  buried  a  year. 
How  revered  and  cherished  is  a  hallowed  motherhood!  Around 
this  are  clustered  the  holiest  scenes  the  heart  can  know.  In  the 
reign  of  England's  gracious  Queen  we  see  combined  the  wise  ruler 
of  monarchy  and  the  priestess  of  the  home.  The  mother-heart  of 
this  Queen  shaped  the  destiny  and  controlled  the  policy  of  the 
woman  sovereign. 

Where  is  the  emphasis  of  Christian  duty  placed  to-day  in 
Christian  homes?  Where  does  your  life  and  mine  put  its  true  em- 
phasis? Is  it  for  making  the  world  better?  Is  it  for  training  the 
boys  of  the  nation  to  love,  and  self-sacrifice,  and  peace,  instead  of 
strife,  and  selfishness,  and  unholy  ambition,  and  disregard  of  oth- 


198 

ers?  With  the  heritage  of  our  Quaker  testimonies,  with  our  ardent 
confidence  in  divine  guidance,  shall  we  not  recognize  the  wholt 
world  as  our  country,  every  family  as  our  interest,  and  help  thus  to 
establish  that  golden  era  of  brotherhood,  which  will  be  the  intro- 
duction of  His  kingdom,  for  which  we  pray? 

The  Chairman  :     The  second  paper  on  the  program  is  "  War 

Inconsistent  With  the  Genins  of  Quakerism."  by  President  Charles 
E.  Tebbetts,  of  Whittier  College,  California.  The  paper,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  President  Tebbetts.  will  be  read  by  President  Unthank, 
of  Wilmington  College,  Ohio. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  Before  President  Unthank  reads 
I  think  I  ought  to  say  just  a  word  about  the  absence  of  President 
Tebbetts.  He  has  been  extremely  interested  in  the  Conference  and 
would  have  liked  very  much  to  be  here;  but  he  found  his  work 
pressing,  and  he  felt  that  it  was  too  much  to  have  the  committee  pay 
his  traveling  expenses  for  such  a  long  journey.  He  thought  his  paper 
would  do  as  well  without  him.  I  assure  you  that  he  is  not  away 
from  any  lack  of  interest.  He  is  one  of  our  most  faithful  and  ca- 
pable peace  workers  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 


WAE  INCONSISTENT  WITH  THE  GENIUS  OF 
QUAKEEISM. 

BY  PRESIDENT  CHARLES  E.   TEBBETTS,  WHITTIER  COLLEGE,    CAL. 

In  a  leading  editorial  of  one  of  our  most  prominent  journals  * 
occurs  the  following: 

"  Did  General  Funston  do  right?  Was  he  justified  in  deceiving 
Aguinaldo  and  capturing  him  by  this  deception?  The  answer  is 
simply  the  answer  of  war.  It  is  wrong  to  lie,  and  wrong  to  steal, 
and  wrong  to  kill.  But  in  war  men  must  lie  and  steal  and  kill. 
Then  war  is  wrong?  Certainly — wrong  for  somebody — for  the 
party  that  is  in  the  wrong,  and  whose  act  involves  both  parties  in 
all  these  wrong  acts.  War  is  an  accursed  thing:  '  War  is  hell '  ; 
but  all  is  fair  in  war  and  hell.  There  was  no  violation  of  the  laws 
of  war  in  General  Funston's  conduct." 

The  amazing  logic  of  this  quotation,  which  would  make  it  right 
for  a  Christian  to  violate  all  the  laws  of  God  because  some  other 
party  is  in  the  wrong,  is  altogether  too  prevalent  among  Christian 
people,  even  in  this  enlightened  twentieth  century. 

The  above  statement  suggests  a  fact  most  serious  in  its  conse- 
quences, which  I  will  state  in  a  proposition,  thus:  To  become  a  sol- 
dier in  a  modern  army  requires  the  individual  to  surrender  his 
conscience  into  the  control  of  his  superior  ofl&cer. 

*  "  New  York  Independent,"  April  4th,  1901. 


199 

This  fact  is  specially  true  under  the  discipline  of  modern  times. 
In  ancient  warfare  an  Achilles  mifjht  retire  to  his  tent  and  refuse 
to  take  part  in  the  conflict  if  it  did  not  suit  him;  but  in  these  days 
a  soldier  is  made  a  part  of  a  vast  machine,  under  the  absolute  con- 
trol of  his  connnandino;  ofTicer.  I  am  aware  that  there  have  ])een 
noble  instances  of  the  exercise  of  conscience  in  minor  matters,  as 
in  the  case  of  some  young  men  who  declined  to  go  on  duty  as  bar- 
tenders for  the  army  canteen,  and  were  excused  by  a  lenient  officer 
because  of  conscientious  convictions.  Yet  it  is  true  that  in  all 
things  essential  to  the  successful  carrying  on  of  war,  the  conscience 
must  be  surrendered;  for  '"  in  war  men  must  lie  and  steal  and  kill,'' 
and  destroy  property  and  burn  homes  and  violate  the  Sabbath  day, 
and  subject  women  and  children  to  disease  and  death,  and  what- 
ever else  of  cruelty  the  commanding  general  may  regard  as  essen- 
tial to  final  victory. 

Another  proposition  equally  serious  with  the  above  is  this:  To 
become  a  soldier  requires  the  abrogation  of  the  human  reason  in 
all  matters  pertaining  to  the  issues  of  the  conflict.  A  soldier  might 
become  convinced  that  the  right  in  the  contention  was  with  the 
enemy,  and  that  he  was  fighting  with  a  side  wholly  in  the  wrong; 
and  yet  there  is  no  honorable  way  to  escape  the  dilemma.  To  state 
his  convictions  would  lead  to  suspicion;  to  desert  the  army  means 
dishonor  and  death.  Rather  would  he  be  likely  to  yield  to  a  senti- 
ment altogether  too  common,  '"  My  coimtry,  may  she  be  always 
right;  but  my  country  always,  right  or  wrong." 

What  can  possibly  be  more  disastrous  than  this  dethronement  of 
conscience  and  reason?  The  suffering  incident  to  death  upon  the 
battlefield  or  disease  in  camp  is  usually  soon  ended.  The  heart- 
pangs  caused  by  broken  home  ties  and  loss  of  loved  ones  will  heal. 
Entire  lives  subject  to  the  loss  of  limb  and  weakened  physical  ener- 
gies have  their  compensation  in  human  thought  in  the  honors  and 
glory  consequent  thereto.  But  what  compensation  is  there  for  the 
moral  degeneration,  the  debased  manhood,  the  lowering  of  con- 
science, the  impairing  of  reason  that  follows  in  the  train  of  the 
conflict  of  war.  and  is  entailed  by  the  laws  of  heredity  upon  future 
generations? 

Nor  does  the  soldier  alone  suffer  in  the  cessation  of  reason  and 
conscience.  From  the  beginning  of  the  war  until  its  end  every 
voice  of  argument  or  of  protest  that  does  not  harmonize  with  the 
attitude  of  the  government  must  be  hushed,  or  taint  of  treason 
rests  upon  one  who  lets  that  voice  be  heard.  Even  the  preacher 
of  the  word,  who  ought  to  stand  unflinchingly  for  righteousness 
and  the  inviolability  of  the  law  of  God,  becomes  too  often  an  apolo- 
gist for  the  barbarism  of  war,  or  even  an  enthusiastic  instigator 
thereto. 

Does  it  need  any  argument  to  show  that  this  enslavement  of 
conscience  and  reason  is  inconsistent  with  the  genius  of  Quaker- 
ism?    Can  we  bv  anv  stretch  of  the  imaffination  think  of  Fox  and 


200 

his  associates  as  submitting  themselves  to  the  mechanical  move- 
ments of  a  modem  drill-master,  and  degrading  manhood  to  the 
level  of  an  inanimate  machine?  Their  conception  of  the  dignity 
of  the  individual  man  was  so  high  that  they  would  pay  homage  only 
to  God  himself,  and  carried  it  to  the  very  extreme  in  their  refusal  to 
remove  the  hat,  or  use  the  plural  pronoun  when  addressing  an  in- 
dividual. No  man  could  ever  stand  between  them  and  God,  or  dic- 
tate to  them  the  lines  of  duty.  God's  law  was  supreme,  and  no 
human  plan  was  allowed  to  interfere  with  their  obedience  to  the 
divine  voice.  The  conscience  must  ever  be  kept  tender  to  the  least 
intimation  of  duty.  No  command  of  God  was  trivial;  no  human 
authority  could  for  one  moment  abrogate  the  divine  command. 
What  others  regarded  lightly  was  to  them  a  solemn  obligation. 
They  spent  months  and  sometimes  years  in  foul  dungeons,  rather 
than  take  an  oath.  For  them  to  have  submitted  their  conscience 
or  reason  to  the  will  of  another  would  have  been  to  sell  the  very 
birthright  of  their  manhood. 

Three  things,  at  least,  were  fundamental  to  early  Quakerism: 
the  supremacy  of  the  divine  law  over  every  human  authority,  the 
freedom  of  the  individual  conscience  from  all  dictation  of  men,  and 
the  right  of  every  man  to  discover  for  himself  the  righteousness  of 
every  cause  involving  human  conduct,  and  when  discovered,  the 
obligation  fearlessly  to  espouse  the  side  of  right.  These  principles 
have  made  the  Friend  the  uncompromising  foe  of  all  oppression 
and  the  pioneer  in  every  right  reform. 

It  is  no  idle  boasting  to  claim  for  our  forefathers  their  full 
share  of  credit  for  the  victories  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  If 
they  were  right  in  the  m^aintenance  of  these  principles,  the  obliga- 
tion rests  no  less  heavily  upon  us,  their  children,  to  condemn  war 
as  being  always  utterly  antagonistic  to  the  laws  of  God. 

But  were  they  right?  Were  they  correct  exponents  of  the 
teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles?  Only  a  few  days  ago  I  heard 
the  assertion,  in  a  most  excellent  Thanksgiving  address,  that  a 
Christian  was  bound  to  obey  every  command  of  his  government. 
This  was  based  upon  Paul's  words  in  Eom.  13,  "  Let  every  soul  be 
in  subjection  to  the  higher  powers.  .  .  .  He  that  resisteth  the 
power  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God  ";  and  also  upon  Peter's  in- 
junction, '"  Be  subject  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's 
sake."  Did  they  mean  that  a  man  could  shift  responsibility  from 
his  own  conscience  for  any  act,  however  foolish  or  wrong,  because 
of  the  command  of  those  in  authority?  Daniel  and  his  companions 
certainly  did  not  so  understand  God's  law;  and  Peter  is  his  own  best 
interpreter,  when  in  answer  to  the  command  of  the  authorities 
"  not  to  speak  at  all  or  teach  in  the  name  of  Jesus,"  he  replied, 
"  Whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hearken  unto  you  rath- 
er than  unto  God,  judge  ye." 

We  may  then  not  shrink  from  the  assertion  that  we  cannot  be- 
come soldiers  and  recognize  God's  supreme    authority   over    con- 


201 

science  and  reason.  May  it  not  be  ours  to  so  persistently  enforce 
this  truth,  that  all  Christians  shall  come  to  see  that  war  is  incon- 
sistent with  Christianity?  This  time  will  come;  and  when  it  comes 
Mar  will  have  become  a  barbarism  of  the  past. 

The  Ch^mrman:  The  next  paper,  "Constancy  in  our  Peace 
Sentiment  and  Effort,"  is  by  President  Edwin  McGrew,  of  Pacific 
College,  Ore. 


CONSTANCY  IN  OUE  PEACE  SENTIMENT  AND  EFFORT. 

BY    PRESIDENT    EDWIN    m'GREW,    PACIFIC    COLLEGE,    OREGON. 

In  every  movement  of  reform  there  are  periods  of  greater  or 
less  hopefulness  and  periods  of  greater  or  less  discouragement. 
There  are  times  when  the  sunlight  of  possible  success  seems  ready 
to  burst  forth  to  ripen  faith  into  sight  and  hope  into  possession,  and 
again  the  unbroken  cloud  of  despair  seems  to  shut  us  from  the  pos- 
sible realization  of  the  thing  hoped  for.  The  crowds  depend  upon 
conditions,  but  the  heart  of  the  true  reformer  is  moved  by  a  more 
constant  power.  We  sit  in  a  peace  conference  and  follow  some  one 
in  a  well-prepared  paper  that  outlines  a  hopeful  view;  we  watch  the 
development  of  the  national  peace  idea  from  its  germination,  until, 
cultivated  and  nourished,  it  comes  to  mature  fruitage  in  a  powerful 
peace  congress,  and  we  are  all  men  and  women  of  peace. 

But  we  go  from  these  great  meetings,  and  in  the  mighty  on- 
ward progress  of  the  nations  of  the  world  there  comes  a  clash — a 
battleship  is  sunk,  the  flag  is  insulted,  what  then?  Oh,  the  mighty 
provocation  is  a  suiftcient  cause  for  war — we  are  people  of  peace, 
but  for  all  that  shall  we  not  defend  our  flag?  Certainly,  as  we  re- 
spect and  love  our  flag  we  must  defend  it,  and  demand  that  other 
nations  respect  it;  but  shall  it  be  by  way  of  the  bloody  and  dead- 
strewn  field  of  carnage,  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Christ 
whom  we  profess  to  love  above  father  and  mother,  houses  and 
lands,  nation  and  national  emblem? 

As  Christian  men  and  women,  rich  in  inheritance  from  a  devout 
peace-loving  ancestry,  rich  as  subjects  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  there 
is  but  one  position  for  us  to  take,  and  that  is — war  is,  first  of  all, 
morally  wrong,  regardless  of  conditions.  A  second  proposition, 
which  I  will  consider  only  briefly,  but  one  worthy  of  careful  con- 
sideration, is  that  from  a  social  and  economic  standpoint  war  is 
not  a  satisfactory  means  toward  the  end  desired.  The  moral  ques- 
tion has  been  discussed  until  perhaps  the  discussions  have  well- 
nigh  lost  their  power  to  move  the  hearts  of  men.  Yet  in  the  open- 
ing days  of  this  great  new  century,  under  the  steady  glow  of  the 
light  of  our  boasted  civilization,  touched  by  the  radiance  of  the 
cross  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  must  soften  hatred  into  love,  and  bal- 
ance justice  with  mercy,  it  is  not  difficult  to   find   men    of   high 


202 

Christian  profession  and  church  standing  ready  to  favor  the  use  of 
armies  and  navies,  and  to  advocate  government  legislation  for  their 
support. 

In  a  most  peculiar  way  has  the  "  right "  of  the  matter  been  pre- 
sented, and  a  "  righteous  and  Christian  "  war  has  been  entered  into 
for  the  "  sake  of  humanity ''  and  those  oppressed  by  tyranny.  It 
has  been  urged  that  the  position  one  may  take  concerning  this 
question  measures  unerringly  his  loyalty  to  his  country  and  his 
love  for  the  flag.  It  has  been  with  some  effort  that  some  of  us  who 
represent  the  West  have  urged  that  it  is  as  much  a  mark  of  pa- 
triotism to  pay  taxes  as  it  is  to  fight,  and  with  great  difl&culty  have 
we  restrained  some  of  our  earnest  young  men  from  enlisting.  May 
the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  remember  the  lesson  from  her  earlier 
history  and  never  attempt  military  engagement  with  the  cross  at 
the  columns'  front.  A  fatal  day  was  that  to  the  Christian  Church. 
Unwonted  results  will  follow  the  propagation  of  the  Christ-spirit 
by  Satan's  methods.  Let  the  tempting  one  still  be  rebuked  with 
scripture  message,  while  we  catch  the  words  from  the  lips  of  the 
Nazarene — the  Son  of  God — my  kingdom  is  of  another  character. 
"  Put  up  thy  sword." 

The  Society  of  Friends  has  ever  been  recognized  as  an  uncom- 
promising champion  of  the  cause  of  peace.  Much  of  our  litera- 
ture is  upon  this  subject;  with  no  uncertain  sound  we  have  cried  out 
against  war.  We  have  advocated  the  doctrine  that  peace  is  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  Christianity.  I  say,  we  have  done  this  if 
we  have  been  true  representative  Friends,  for  we  meet  on  com- 
mon ground  these  days  of  blessed  and  helpful  intercourse,  because 
this  doctrine  of  peace  is  one  of  the  great  distinguishing  features 
of  Quakerism. 

Just  here,  by  her  permission,  I  incorporate  in  my  paper  some 
lines  written  by  our  friend,  Elizabeth  B.  Miles,  who  is  the  most 
zealous  advocate  of  peace  in  Oregon  Yearly  Meeting: 

"  The  consideration  of  the  great  principle  of  peace  is  the  vital 
question  of  Christianity,  embracing  as  it  does  the  mission  of  Christ 
upon  earth  as  expressed  by  the  prophet,  '  For  unto  us  a  child  is 
born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his 
shoulders,  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counselor,  The 
mighty  God,  The  everlasting  Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace,'  and  as 
announced  by  the  angels  at  his  birth,  '  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest, 
on  earth  peace  and  goodwill  to  men.'  It  permeates  every  fibre  of 
our  being  and  enters  into  every  action  in  every  relation  in  life;  into 
every  moment  in  every  period  of  life;  in  our  walk  among  men,  in 
our  homes,  in  our  neighborhoods,  in  Church,  in  State,  in  nation. 
Every  friction  that  gives  pain  to  another  is  a  violation  of  this  prin- 
ciple. Christ  will  manifest  peace,  promote  harmony,  heal  every 
offence.  As  it  regulates  the  hearts  of  men  it  gives  living  force  to 
the  powers  of  influence  permeating  communities  and  becomes  iden- 
tified with  the  angels'  anthem,  '  Peace  on  earth,  goodwill  to  men.' 


203 

"This  liviii^i'.  Christ-heorottcn  princij^le  will  eradicate  evil  and 
is  the  only  remedy  to  cause  conflict  and  wars  to  cease.  I  believe 
this  gieat  emancipation  is  increasing  in  the  earth.  The  Captain  of 
the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  pressing  on  to  victory." 

May  such  holy  sentiment  control  our  great  Christian  nation. 
All  strife  that  would  work  ill  to  our  neighbors — neighbors  in  the 
narrow  Pharisaic  sense  and  neighbors  in  the  liroad  Christian  idea — 
all  words  that  tend  to  stir  up  hatred,  all,  all,  are  out  of  harmony 
with  the  Christ  we  serve.  How  inconsistent  with  our  conception  of 
his  true,  generous,  loving  spirit,  how  revolting  to  our  thought  that 
he  whose  message  was  and  is  peace,  and  whose  touch  was  the  touch 
of  healing — should  lead  an  army  of  carnal  warfare.  Then  how  can 
his  followers? 

Some  one  has  said  it  was  an  awful  thing  for  Abel  to  be  killed; 
but  that  "  it  wns  lots  worse  for  Cain  to  kill  him."  Two  little  pic- 
tures have  found  their  way  to  our  home  on  the  Pacific  slope;  one 
is  a  scene  in  South  Africa.  The  landscape  is  rough,  rocky  and 
broken — only  here  and  there  are  bunches  of  low  underbrush,  while 
away  in  the  background  rise  the  higher  and  more  rugged  cliffs. 
It  is  evening  time,  and,  as  the  sun  sinks  behind  the  mountain,  a 
sulphurous  cloud  of  battle  smoke  hangs  around  the  hill-tops.  In 
the  foreground  lies  the  body  of  a  Boer  soldier,  one  of  many  who  fell 
that  day  before  the  awful  fire  of  British  guns.  He  had  fallen  with 
deadly  wounds,  and  while  the  hot  sun  poured  burning  heat  upon 
him  he  writhed  in  death  agony  upon  his  bed  of  rock  and  sand.  As 
the  day  grew  cooler,  he  became  insensible  to  suffering  and  lay  quiet- 
ly dreaming  of  the  little  home  away  across  the  valley,  where  wife  and 
children,  with  generous  love,  petition  God  to  provide  and  care  for 
one  who  has  gone  to  fight  and  die  for  them.  He  dreams,  too,  of 
the  morrow  and  of  those  who  will  gather  at  the  church  to  pray  for 
the  cause  for  which  he  is  dying.  Well,  right  or  wrong,  we  find 
ourselves  saying,  it  is  too  bad  that  a  soldier  must  suffer  and  die 
on  the  battle  field  away  from  his  home.  Yes,  but  I  have  thought 
it  was  worse  for  England,  civilized  England,  enlightened  England, 
Christian  England,  praying  England,  to  kill  him.  Add  to  this 
scene  multitudes  of  like  scenes,  scenes  a  thousand  fold  woree  than 
this,  scenes  of  foulest,  blackest  crime,  and  we  say  they  are  bad — 
but  0!  worse,  worse,  when  laid  at  the  door  of  a  Christian  nation. 

The  second  picture  is  not  unlike  the  first.  The  scenery  is  richer, 
for  it  is  an  island  of  tropical  verdure.  The  sun  that  seemed  to 
rise  out  of  the  deep  blue  waters  to  the  eastward  has  gone  beyond 
the  palm  grove  and  seems  ready  to  drop  into  the  restless  waves  of 
the  western  sea.  American  soldiers  are  reviewing  the  work  of  the 
day.  Here  a  company  of  Red  Cross  men  are  tenderly  caring  for 
a  wounded  Filipino,  and  here  another  company  of  soldiers  are  look- 
ing upon  a  little  lad  who  has  been  a  victim  of  one  of  their  shots. 
One  soldier  reniarks,  "  He  couldn't  outrun  our  bullets  ";  and  again 


204 

we  are  ready  to  say.  Too  bad  he  was  killed.  Yes,  but  it  was  worse 
for  Christian  America  to  kill  him. 

I  need  not  recount  the  oft-repeated, but  seldom  exaggerated  hor- 
rors of  war.  The  Lord  preserve  us  from  allowing  our  feelings  to 
become  deadened  until  we  fail  to  recognize  that  war  at  its  very  best 
is  crime. 

Since  I  represent  so  distant  a  section  of  the  work  of  Friends, 
it  may  be  interesting  to  some  to  know  that  we  are  doing  something 
in  the  line  of  peace  education.  Last  spring  the  debating  team  of 
the  Pacifie  College  won,  by  the  unanimous  decision  of  the  judges,  in 
a  debate  with  a  team  from  one  of  our  State  institutions,  our  team 
taking  the  peace  side  of  the  discussion  concerning  the  Transvaal 
situation;  and  at  our  commencement  two  orations  were  given  on 
the  subject  of  peace  and  arbitration,  neither  speaker  being  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Society  of  Friends.  I  have  been  asked  if  our  college 
is  Pacific  with  reference  to  size.  It  is  not,  but  it  is  none  the  less 
Pacific. 

A  little  careful  consideration,  which  time  does  not  admit  of 
in  this  paper,  would  be  convincing  that  war,  from  both  the  social 
and  the  economic  standpoint,  is  a  curse  to  any  people.  No  war  can 
make  a  wrong  right,  nor  can  it  be  a  satisfactory  arbiter  of  justice. 
In  our  demands  for  peace  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  there 
will  often  arise  questions  demanding  justice  in  settlement,  con- 
stant wrongs  that  must  be  righted.  The  x^merican  people  will 
never  respond  to  a  cry  for  peace  that  demands  a  softening  of  patri- 
otic sentiment.  We  love  a  liberty  that  has  in  it  no  loose  license,  a 
liberty  not  of  mere  beautiful  sentiments,  but  a  liberty  "  established 
in  permanent  institutions  under  the  sway  of  law."  The  peace 
which  we  desire  is  not  such  as  will  make  us  willing  to  see  our  flag 
insulted  and  our  rights  infringed  upon,  nor  such  as  will  sap  our 
patriotism,  but  a  peace  that  demands  justice  by  wise  and  righteous 
methods.  I  love  my  country,  and,  as  I  walk  over  these  old  battle 
grounds  which  are  so  familiar  to  some  of  you,  they  seem  like  hal- 
lowed spots  to  me,  not  because  I  approve  of  the  methods  whereby 
our  freedom  was  purchased,  but  because  I  recognize  with  sorrow 
the  great  travail  that  brought  forth  this  new  nation.  These  old 
historic  buildings  are  sacred,  and  I  thank  God  for  all  that  has  been 
done  for  me.  As  I  ride  from  ocean  to  ocean,  through  rich  valleys 
and  over  mighty  mountain  ranges  full  of  unmeasured  wealth — 
over  the  vast  plains  where  range-cattle  graze,  and  across  the  great 
farms  of  the  Middle  States,  where  the  granaries  are  overflowing 
with  their  store,  over  the  hills  and  valleys  of  Eastern  States,  with 
prosperous  towns  and  thriving  commercial  cities,  I  am  convinced 
that  this  flag  of  freedom  and  justice  and  purity  waves  over  the 
grandest  nation  that  God  ever  gave  man  to  rule,  and  I  pray  it  may 
never  again  be  compelled  to  wave  in  sulphurous  smoke  above  the 
confused  noise  of  battle. 

But  I  am  not  a  prophet  to  say  our  nation  will  or  will  not  ever 


205 

again  engage  in  carnal  warfare.  We  hope  for  a  better  future,  but 
there  may  yet  be  wars  and  rumors  of  wars.  Most  hopeful  senti- 
ments have  been  read  in  our  hearing.  Some  have  declared  we  are 
near  the  last  days  of  carnal  warfare.  Let  us  hope  as  much.  Some- 
times, indeed,  it  seems  we  are  nearing  the  fulfillment  of  the  pro- 
phecies of  universal  peace.  And  so  we  pray  that  "  come  it  may," 
and  hope  that 

"  Come  it  will  for  a'  that, 
When  man  to  man,  the  warld  o'er, 
Shall  brothers  he  for  a'  that." 

Again  we  shout  with  confidence  that  the  implements  of  war- 
fare are  soon  to  be  hammered  and  beaten  into  instruments  of  peace, 
and  the  "  war  drums  shall  throb  no  longer,"  and  the  great  world 
federation  shall  be  realized,  when  the  ivy  shall  twine  about  the 
half-buried  cannon  to  hold  it  forever  in  its  place,  while  the  chil- 
dren of  peace  will  fill  its  silent  mouth  with  roses.  I  hope  with  you 
that  the  time  is  near  at  hand,  and  I  believe  that  this  great  and  most 
inspiring  conference  is  to  be  a  help  in  that  direction.  But  such  con- 
vention is  not  enough.  Every  life  from  this  time  forth  must  be  a 
potent  and  aggressive  force  for  peace.  The  Master  in  his  an- 
nouncement that  his  kingdom  is  not  of  such  character  as  to  de- 
mand his  followers  to  fight,  did  not  indicate  that  they  need  not 
work.  On  the  contrary,  his  coming  to  the  world  was  the  birth  of  a 
new  force,  and  his  every  step  and  word  was  in  service.  To  his  dis- 
ciples he  gave  the  matchless  commission  for  labor,  "  Go  and  herald 
my  gospel."  In  obedience  to  his  commandment  are  the  greatest 
possibilities  of  dif.seminating  our  peace  doctrine.  With  all  the  many 
things  and  conditions  that  make  for  peace,  many  of  which  have 
been  so  beautifully  set  forth,  nothing  has  resulted  or  can  result 
in  so  much  as  the  wise,  prayerful,  vigorous  sacrificing  efforts  of 
true  missionaries  and  evangelists  of  the  cross,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  great  apostle  indicated  a  mighty  truth  in  his  rich  testi- 
mony that  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  made  him 
free  from  another  law.  The  broad  truth  indicated  is  simply  this: 
the  only  thing  that  can  overcome  law  is  law. 

After  we  meet  in  one  more  session  of  this  great  and  good  con- 
ference, I  think  we  must  return  to  our  respective  places  of  ser- 
vice— in  the  household,  in  business  life,  in  educational  effort — 
in  this  lovely  and  hospitable  city,  in  the  north  land,  in  the  south 
land,  on  the  plains  of  the  West  or  beyond  its  rugged  mountain 
ranges,  truer  exponents  of  the  "  law  of  the  spirit  of  life,"  which 
will  make  the  individual  and  the  world  "  free  from  the  law  of  sin 
and  death." 

The  Chairman:  There  is  important  business  to  come  before 
this  afternoon's  session,  and  it  has  been  thought  by  the  Business 


2U() 

Committee  that  it  had  better  come  at  this  time  and  the  discussion 
of  the  papers  be  left  imtil  later.  First  is  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  subject  of  an  Address  to  the  President,  which  will  be  pre- 
sented by  Dr.  Trueblood. 

BENJAiiiN  F.  Trueblood:  The  Business  Committee  have  no- 
ticed during  the  sessions  the  expression  a  number  of  times  of  the 
hope  that  this  Conference  would  send  either  a  deputation  or  a 
message  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  expressing  sympathy 
with  him  in  his  great  responsibilities,  appreciation  of  his  integrity 
and  high  sense  of  honor,  and  also  encouragement  to  him  to  do  all 
that  is  within  his  power  as  the  Chief  Executive  of  the  nation  to  fur- 
ther the  cause  of  permanent  international  peace.  The  committee 
have  had  the  matter  under  careful  consideration;  and  it  has  seemed 
to  them  best  on  the  whole  to  name  a  committee  of  five  persons  to 
draft  and  send  to  the  President  a  message  on  behalf  of  the  Con- 
ference. It  has  been  impossible  in  the  press  of  business  and  other 
engagements  connected  with  the  Conference,  for  us  to  have  time 
to  draft  such  a  message  as  we  thought  would  be  worthy  to  be  sent. 
We  propose,  therefore,  that  a  committee  of  five,  consisting  of  Presi- 
dent Sharpless^  of  Haverford  College;  President  Birdsall,  of 
Swarthmore  College;  Philip  C.  Garrett,  Howard  M.  Jenkins  and 
Eufus  M.  Jones,  be  appointed  to  prepare  as  early  as  possible  and 
to  send  to  the  President  on  behalf  of  this  Conference  such  a  message 
as  in  their  judgment  it  may  seem  wise  to  send  to  him. 

After  some  discussion,  the  names  of  Susan  W.  Janney  and  Pres- 
ident M.  Carey  Thomas  were  added  to  the  list  of  persons  proposed 
for  the  committee,  and  the  proposition  was  adopted. 

The  Chaieman:  The  second  matter  of  business  is  that  of  the 
printing  the  report  of  the  Conference,  which  will  be  introduced  by 
Howard  M.  Jenkins. 

HowAED  M.  Jenkins:  By  direction  of  the  Business  Commit- 
tee, I  propose  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  be  printed; 
not  less  than  5,000  copies,  and  as  many  more  as  the  funds,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  committee,  may  warrant. 

Joshua  L.  Bailt:  I  want  to  second  that  proposition,  Init  to 
make  a  little  addition.  It  is  very  proper  that  the  proceedings  as  a 
whole  be  published,  and  I  hope  the  edition  will  be  large 
enough  to  place  a  copy  in  every  public  library  through- 
out the  country.  Some  of  the  papers  which  have  been 
read  have  a  special  fitness  at  this  time.  I  should  like 
to  have  the  committee  left  at  liberty  to  pul)lish  these  in  separate 
form  for  a  wider  circulation  than  will  be  obtained  by  the  pro- 
ceeedings  as  a  whole.     I  should  like  to  see  some  of  them  printed 


207 

by  the  tens  of  thousands.  We  Friends  who  feel  interested  in  the 
circnLation  of  these  papers  on^ht  to  send  contributions  at  once  to 
the  Finance  Committee.  A  thousand  dollars  has  been  raised  to 
pay  the  necess;ary  expenses  of  the  Conference.  I  think  at  least 
another  thousand  dollars  can  be  usefully  employed  in  the  publica- 
tion and  distribution  of  the  papers. 

Philip  C.  Garrett:  T  think,  probably,  some  of  the  peace  so- 
cieties of  the  country  would  be  very  glad  to  take  advantage  of  the 
opportunity  to  purchase  a  considerable  number  of  copies  of  the 
report  or  of  certain  of  the  papers,  such  as  will  be  of  special  value 
to  them.  I  hope  that  the  other  suggestion  with  regard  to  the  pub- 
lic libraries  will  take  hold  of  Friends  generally.  Bound  copies  of 
the  proceedings  might  well  be  placed  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  in 
the  libraries  of  the  Legislatures  of  all  of  the  States,  and  in  many 
other  public  libraries.  A  fund,  it  seems  to  me,  could  easily  be 
made  up  for  that  purpose. 

The  proposition  of  Howard  M.  Jenkins  was  then  adopted. 

The  Chairman:  Philip  C.  Garrett  has  a  further  matter  of 
business  to  introduce. 

Philip  C.  Garrett:  It  is  manifest  that  between  the  reading 
of  the  papers  and  their  publication  there  is  a  large  amount  of  work 
to  be  done  by  some  one.  It  will  be  necessary  to  assign  the  editing 
of  them  to  somebody.  My  motion  is  that  a  committee  of  three, 
with  power  to  add  to  their  numbers,  be  appointed,  who  shall  take 
the  papers  and  edit  them,  and  do  whatever  is  necessary  in  the  way 
of  deciding  the  number  to  be  issued  and  every  other  question  relat- 
ing to  publication.  I  would  propose  that  Dr.  Benjamin  F.  True- 
blood,  Howard  M.  Jenkins  and  Rufus  M.  Jones  be  the  committee 
of  three,  with  power  to  add  to  their  number. 

The  proposition  of  Philip  C.  Garrett  was  approved  and  the  com- 
mittee appointed. 

The  Chairman:  There  is  a  further  report  from  the  Business 
Committee,  which  Dr.  Trueblood  will  present. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood:  One  of  the  subjects  assigned  to  the 
Business  Committee  at  the  opening  of  the  Conference  was  the  con- 
sideration of  resolutions  that  might  be  offered  and  the  preparation 
of  such  a  declaration  as  we  might  think  it  wise  that  the  Conference 
should  issue.  The  committee  have  had  these  matters  under  care- 
ful consideration  and  have  decided  that,  in  addition  to  sending  a 
message  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  it  is  wise  to  issue 


208 

a  short  declaration,  setting  forth  the  convictions  of  the  Friends 
here  gathered  on  the  important  suhject  for  the  promotion  of  which 
the  Conference  was  called. 

In  preparing  this  declaration  Ave  have  had  several  things  in 
mind.  In  the  first  place.  Ave  felt  that  it  must  be  brief,  for  now-a- 
days  people  will  not  read  anything  that  is  very  long.  In  the  sec- 
ond place,  it  seemed  to  iis  clear  that  the  document  should  be  funda- 
mentally a  restatement  of  the  views  the  Friends  have  always  held  in 
regard  to  war.  The  committee  believed,  further,  that  our  utter- 
ance should  contain  a  positive  statement  of  the  power  and  efficiency 
of  the  moral  forces  which  create  peace  in  the  world.  The  commit- 
tee also  thought  that  it  was  not  wise  to  let  this  occasion  pass  with- 
out expressing  an  appreciation  of  the  remarkable  gain  which  the 
cause  of  peace  has  made  in  recent  times.  It  also  felt  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  Conference  at  least  to  utter  its  serious  regret  at  the 
wars  which  have  recently  been  going  on  in  the  world  and  in  some 
measure  still  continue;  and,  lastly,  that  an  appeal  should  be  made 
to  Christians  of  all  names  in  our  country  to  be  more  faithful  and 
zealous  in  setting  forth  and  maintaining  the  great  principles  of 
peace  which  lie  at  the  very  heart  of  our  Christianity.  On  behalf  of 
the  committee,  I  submit  for  your  consideration  the  following,  and 
move  its  adoption: 


DECLARATION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  FRIENDS'  PEACE  CONFERENCE, 
HELD  IN  PHILADELPHIA,  THE  12TH,  13TH  AND  14TH  OF 
TWELFTH  MONTH,  190L 

1.  This  Conference  of  members  of  the  different  bodies  of  Friends  in 
America  is  convinced  that  lapse  of  time  has  not  made  necessary  any 
change  in  the  position  which  the  Friends  have  always  taken  on  the  subject 
of  war.  Rather  have  reasons  accumulated,  with  the  passing  generations, 
for  believing  that  war  in  all  its  forms  is  not  only  irreconcilable  \A'ith  the 
precepts,  example  and  spirit  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  but  that  it 
is  likewise  out  of  harmony  with  the  common  principles  of  reason  and 
morality,  whose  foundations  are  laid  in  the  essential  constitution  of 
humanity.  War,  in  its  spirit,  its  deeds,  the  persistent  animosities  Avhich 
it  generates,  the  individual  and  social  degeneration  produced  by  it,  is  the 
antithesis  of  Christianity  and  the  negation,  for  the  time  being,  of  the 
moral  order  of  the  world. 

2.  We  believe  that  love,  goodwill,  self-sacrificing  service,  the  faithful 
and  courageous  inculcation,  by  teaching  and  example,  of  truth  and  right- 
eousness, are  the  divinely-ordained  means  for  the  promotion  of  justice  and 
right,  for  the  eradication  of  error  and  iniquity,  for  the  creation  and 
maintenance  of  social  and  political  order,  and  that  the  efficiency  of  these 
is  not  promoted  but  impaired  by  the  instruments  and  methods  of  war. 

3.  We  recognize  Avith  profound  gi-atitude  the  progi'ess  toward  the 
peace  of  the  world  that  has  been  made  in  recent  generations,  in  the  elim- 
ination of  certain  forms  of  Avar,  in  the  establishment  of  peace  over  Avide 
areas  of  territory  within  the  nations  themselves,  in  the  supplanting  of 
brute  violence  by  Law,  and  in  the  progressive  substitution  of  arbitration 
for  war  in  tlie  settlement  of  international  controversies. 

4.  The  establishment  by  the  civilized  powers  of  the  Permanent  Inter- 
national Court  of  Arbitration  Ave  gratefvilly  recognize  to  be  one  of  the 


209 

ereatest  events  in  the  history  of  human  society.  The  setting  up  of  this 
institution  is  the  practical  adoption  by  the  nations  of  the  principles  and 
methods  of  Fettling  controversies  which  have  always  been  advocated  by 
the  Friends.  The  existence  of  this  Court  makes  it  practicable  and  there- 
fore morally  obligatory  hereafter  to  adjust  in  a  pacific  way  all  interna- 
tional controversies  that  may  arise,  and  therefore  takes  away  every  ground 
that  has  been  urged  for  considering  war  a  necessity. 

5.  We  deplore  the  fact  that  nations  making  high  profession  of  Chris- 
tian civilization  are  at  present  engaged  in  war  with  less  civilized  and 
enlightened  peoples,  and  we  believe  that  the  time  has  fully  come  when 
the  voice  of  enlightened  humanity  should  make  itself  heard,  calling  for 
an  adjustment  of  the  matters  at  issue  by  the  Christian  methods  which 
have  in  numerous  instances  of  successfxil  operation  proved  themselves  aa 
practical  as  they  are  reasonable  and  humane. 

In  the  spirit  of  our  Master,  the  Prince  of  Peace,  we  call  upon  Chris- 
tians of  whatever  name  prayerfully  to  consider  whether  they  are  faith- 
fully holding  and  advocating,  as  fully  as  their  profession  demands,  the 
great  principles  of  love,  brotherhood  and  peace,  which  lie  at  the  very 
heart  of  our  common  Christianity,  and  the  faithful  maintenance 
and  propagation  of  which  by  all  who  call  themselves  Christians  would, 
we  firmly  believe,  speedily  make  all  war  impossible  and  bring  in  the 
reign  of  permanent  and  universal  peace. 

The  Chaiemak:  We  shall  be  glad  to  hear  the  expression  of 
the  Conference  on  the  subject  of  this  declaration. 

Philip  C.  Garrett:  I  am  glad  to  second  the  motion  which 
has  been  made  for  the  adoption  of  this  paper.  One  feature  of  it, 
which  strikes  me  very  pleasantly,  is  the  tactful  way  in  which  the 
committee  has  touched  the  question  of  existing  wars.  No  nation  is 
named,  but  the  condemnation  of  the  wars  that  are  existing  is  direct 
and  emphatic,  and  will  be  understood  as  well  at  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment of  our  own  country  as  at  the  court  of  St.  James. 

Charles  H.  Penxyp acker:  I  should  like  to  suggest  a  thought 
that  occurs  to  me  relative  to  the  fourth  section  of  this  Declaration 
of  Principles.  It  is  all  right  as  far  as  it  goes;  but  does  it  go  far 
enough?  The  fourth  section  commends  the  establishment  of  a 
court  of  arbitration.  Would  it  not  be  wise  to  deplore  the  fact  that 
the  English  nation  refuses  to  accept  any  arbitration  of  its  difficul- 
ties with  the  Boer  Eepublics?  While  we  commend  the  establish- 
ment of  the  court  of  arbitration,  should  we  not  express  our  great 
disappointment  at  the  refusal  of  the  leading  Christian  nation  of 
modern  times  to  agree  that  its  difficulties  with  those  republics  shall 
be  submitted  to  that  court? 

George  A.  Barton:  I  feel  very  thankful  that  the  delibera- 
tions of  this  Conference  have,  through  the  medium  of  the  Business 
Committee,  taken  form  in  a  set  of  resolutions  so  brief,  so  pointed, 
so  thoughtful  as  those  to  which  we  have  just  listened,  and  I  heart- 
ily approve,  personally,  of  their  adoption  by  this  Conference. 


210 

Hbney  W.  Wilbur:  The  resolutions  seem  to  be  adequate  to 
the  case.  I  think  sometimes  that  teachers  and  preachers  make  a 
mistake  in  presuming  that  they  must  tell  all  they  know  in  a  single 
sermon.  The  philanthropist  has  fulfilled  his  function  when  he 
has  cut  and  made  the  coat.  It  is  no  part  of  his  business  to  put  it 
on  the  man  that  it  fits.  I  believe  that  we  can  send  out  these  reso- 
lutions safely.  Eest  assured  that  the  common  wit  of  a  common 
race  will  make  the  application  where  it  is  needed. 

John  H.  Dillingham:  I  think  we  have  passed  the  four  reso- 
lutions and  that  virtually  in  them  we  have  adopted  the  fifth.  I 
think  that  there  is  no  need  for  raising  special  feeling  over  special 
wars.  We  ought  to  say  all  that  we  have  said  about  the  general 
system  of  war.  I  think  this  will  go  forth  before  the  country  better 
on  its  own  merits  if  we  do  not  seem^  to  reflect  on  the  policy  of  any 
special  v/ar.  We  all  have  our  private  feelings  about  those  two 
wars;  but  I  fear  the  expression  of  opinion  upon  them  will  frus- 
trate the  reception  of  about  all  that  we  have  said  about  war  as  a 
system. 

( 

General  expressions  of  approval  of  the  Declaration  were  given 
from  many  parts  of  the  house. 

The  Chairman:  After  the  general  expression  which  has  been 
given  in  favor  of  accepting  the  Declaration  as  presented  by  the 
Committee,  we  will  consider  it  adopted  as  it  stands. 

Benjamin  F.  Teueblood:  We  had  a  friend  in  the  house  this 
morning  whom  we  are  not  likely  to  have  again.  He  rose  a  time  or 
two  to  speak  and  was  not  noticed.  If  he  is  here  this  afternoon,  I 
should  like  to  ask  that  we  give  him  two  or  three  minutes  before  we 
close.  I  refer  to  Willis  R.  Hotchkiss,  of  the  Friends'  African  In- 
dustrial Mission. 

Willis  E.  Hotchkiss:  I  appreciate  the  courtesy  which  has 
given  me  this  opportunity.  Certain  considerations  would  impel  me 
to  remain  silent  during  this  Conference;  yet  there  is  one  feature  of 
the  subject  that  perhaps  has  not  been  dwelt  upon  with  the  force 
that  it  might  call  for.  There  is  no  doubt  that  ihe  language  of 
peace  is  greatly  needed  in  this  land,  as  well  as  in  those  lands  where 
none  of  the  restraints  of  civilization  are  thrown  about  men;  for  if 
in  this  country,  where  the  restraints  of  civilization  and  Christian- 
ity are  thrown  about  men  to  keep  them  from  evil,  we  yet  read  such 
shocking  details  of  crime  and  debauchery,  what  shall  we  expect 
in  a  land  where  none  of  these  restraints  are  felt,  where  men  are 
left  to  pursue  the  evil  Ijent  of  their  natures  to  the  last  limit,  where 


211 

the  brute  in  man  sIiom-^  liis  teeth  in  tlie  brntalizcd  countenance  and 
vicious  life? 

I  bring  to  you  the  question  of  peace  from  the  savage  standpoint 
and  from  the  missionary  standpoint.  Some  words  have  been 
spoken  during  the  Conference  with  respect  to  this  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. But  it  has  not  been  dwelt  upon  as  it  ought,  perhaps,  to  have 
been.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  these  strenuous  days  the  most  signal 
testimony  to  the  efl'ectiveness  and  the  practicability  of  peace  prin- 
ciples has  been  given  in  the  lives  and  conduct  of  those  who  are  out 
upon  the  frontier  of  civilization,  amid  the  conditions  that  are  so 
strictly  against  these  very  principles.  Against  the  dark  back- 
ground of  recent  events  in  China  there  has  been  painted  a  story  of 
fidelity  and  of  sacred  adherence  to  these  very  principles,  not  on  the 
part  of  l-'riends  alone,  but  on  the  part  of  those  of  every  denomina- 
tion, which  might  well  inspire  us  to  renewed  effort  and  renewed 
diligence.  Great  numbers  of  missionaries,  rather  than  strike  a 
blow  in  their  own  defence,  have  peaceably  bowed  their  head  to  the 
Boxer's  sword.  These  examples  ought  to  inspire  us  to  a  new  and 
fresh  heroism  in  the  work  that  we  have  been  considering  here. 

Again,  the  fling  has  been  thrown  out  against  the  native  Chris- 
tians, many  a  time,  that  they  were  "  Eice  Christians";  in  other 
words,  that  they  were  in  it  for  what  they  could  get  out  of  it  in  a 
material  way.  But  that  fling  may  never  be  thrown  at  them  again 
in  the  face  of  the  magnificent  heroism  of  these  last  days,  when 
multitudes  of  them  have  laid  down  their  lives  in  defence  of  the 
principle  of  non-resistance  which  they  have  received  through  the 
Gospel  that  has  been  home  to  them,  not  by  Friends'  missionaries 
alone,  but  by  other  missionaries.  1  myself  in  Africa  have  seen  the 
missionaries  of  other  denominations,  of  the  Church  of  England, 
refuse  utterly  to  take  up  arms  when  their  institutions  were  at- 
tacked by  Arabs  and  by  hostile  natives;  I  myself  passed  through 
four  years  in  the  most  savage  part  of  Central  Africa,  and  was  am- 
bushed numbers  of  times  by  savage  natives.  I  have  faced  their 
spears  and  their  arrows,  their  bows  and  drawn  bowstrings;  and 
yet  I  never  raised  a  weapon  in  my  own  defence.  It  is  still  true  that 
the  Golden  Eule  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  are  effective  in  a 
remarkable  way.  They  are  not  things  of  centuries  ago,  but  they 
are  very  practical  to-day. 

Another  thing  or  two:  What  is  the  difference  between  the  in- 
fluence of  David  Livingstone  and  that  of  Stanley?  Why  is  it 
that  the  one  is  spoken  of  and  remembered  with  affection  through- 
out the  length  of  the  Dark  Continent  wherever  he  traveled,  while 
the  other  is  forgotten,  or,  if  remembered  at  all,  is  remembered  with 
dislike  because  of  his  deeds  of  blood?  Because  the  one  played  the 
part  of  the  strenuous,  worldly  man  who  goes  through  at  any  cost, 
trampling  up  the  rights  of  his  fellow-man,  and  the  other  that  of  the 
loving  man  of  God,  who  recognizes  that  beneath  even  a  black  skin 
there  is  a  soul  that  lives  throughout  eternity;  that,  though  he  dwell 


21g 

in  the  rude  hut  of  a  savage,  and  though  he  be  so  bestial  that  he 
bow  before  a  stone  and  call  it  God, 

"  A  man's  a  man,  for  a'  that," 

and  has  inalienable  rights,  rights  which  every  man  must  respect^ 
every  man,  at  least,  who  has  a  spark  of  manhood  about  him. 

One  incident  and  I  close:  A  lew  years  ago  two  young  women 
sisters,  were  sent  by  their  mother  from  Australia  to  Central  China. 
Some  time  after  this  one  of  those  numerous  outbreaks  which  have 
sent  a  shudder  of  horror  throughout  the  civilized  world  occurred, 
and  these  two  sisters  were  murdered,  with  the  others  at  that  station 
at  Cochin,  in  China.  Did  that  mother,  away  in  Australia,  bear  a 
spirit  of  revenge  toward  the  murderers  of  her  lovely  daughters? 
No;  but  Mrs.  Saunders,  for  that  was  her  name,  immediately  sold  out 
her  possessions,  and  to-day  she  is  in  Cochin  in  her  daughters'  place, 
proclaiming  to  their  murderers  the  principles  of  the  Prince  of 
Peace.  We  are  finding  out  that  the  principles  that  we  Friends 
stand  for  are  practicable  to  the  very  extreme. 

After  a  few  moments  of  waiting  up  God,  during  which  prayer 
and  thanksgiving  were  vocally  offered  by  Mary  Chawner  Woody, 
the  Conference  adjourned  till  8  p.m. 


IRintb  Session, 


Seventh-DAT  Evening,  Twelfth  Month  14th. 

The  ninth  and  last  session  of  the  Conference  met  in  the  Twelfth 
Street  Meeting-house,  under  the  presidency  of  Dr.  Isaac  Sharpless, 
at  8  p.m. 

A  period  of  silent  devotion  was  observed  at  the  opening  of  the 
session. 

The  Chairman:  The  first  paper  on  the  program  this  evening 
is  by  Josiah  W.  Leeds:  "  Eemedies  for  the  Prevailing  Militarism/* 
to  be  read  by  his  daughter,  Lucy  Leeds. 


REMEDIES  FOR  THE  PREVAILING  MILITARISM. 

BY  JOSIAH  W.  LEEDS,  WEST  CHESTER,  PA. 

It  is  one  of  those  propositions  which  "  goes  without  saying," 
that  when  seeldng  to  apply  the  remedy  to  any  disorder,  we  need  to 
have  clear  knowledge  of  the  complaint,  its  symptoms  and  features, 
in  order  to  a  discovery  of  the  root  of  the  trouble.  We  know  for  a 
certainty  what  are  the  characteristics  of  war.  All  the  adjectives  of 
woe  might  be  exhausted  in  truthfully  portraying  it,  while  we  need 
scarcely  cast  about  for  better  authority  upon  the  generation  of 
the  wretched  brood  than  that  of  the  Apostle  James.  He  tells  us, 
in  asking,  "  Whence  come  wars  and  fightings  ?  "  "  Come  they  not 
hence,  even  of  your  lusts  that  war  in  your  members?  Ye  lust  and 
have  not;  ye  kill  and  desire  to  have,  and  cannot  obtain:  ye  fight  and 
war,  yet  ye  have  not,  because  ye  ask  not,"  or  ask,  only  to  "  consume 
it  upon  your  lusts  ";  and  so  he  goes  on  to  declare,  in  pointing  to- 
wards the  remedy,  how  that  "  the  friendship  of  the  world  is  enmity 
with  God,"  that  it  is  "  a  spirit  that  lusteth  to  envy,"  and  is  only  to 
be  effectually  met  by  that  grace  of  God  which  will  potentially  "  re- 
sist the  devil,"  and,  inferentially,  the  devil's  work  of  war. 

So  here  is  a  disease  affecting  the  whole  system,  whether  we  con- 
sider it  as  of  the  body  individually  or  the  body  nationally,  and  the 
correction,  to  be  effective  and  lasting,  must  run  all  the  way 
through;  nay,  it  will  not  suffice  to  "have  healed  the  hurt  of  the 
daughter  of  my  people  slightly,  saying,  peace,  peace,  when  there  is 
no  peace." 

A  most  singular  suggestion  for  bringing  within  bounds 
the  war  spirit  and  the  spirit  of  anarchy,  a  suggestion  which  was 
seriously  broached,  perhaps,  only  the  present  year,  is  found  in  the 


214 

proposal  to  bring'  about  a  general  softening  of  people's  hearts  and 
sweetening  of  their  tempers  through  a  great  development  of  music. 
How  ill-supported  must  be  such  an  expectation!  Consider  that  thr 
Athenians  of  old,  who  developed  plenty  of  the  war  fever,  were 
a  music-loving  people;  and  in  our  own  time,  none  more  so  than  the 
Italians,  yet  we  hardly  look  upon  them  as  a  nation  ardently  anx- 
ious for  peace.  Reading,  years  ago,  a  series  of  brief  biographies 
of  noted  musical  composers,  I  remember  to  have  been  struck  with 
the  fact  that;  despite  the  atmosphere  of  constructive  harmony  in 
which  they  lived,  the  inspiration  of  dulcet  symphonies  did  not 
suffice  (with  many  of  them  at  least)  to  subdue  the  tempest  in  the 
human  breast.  Indeed,  the  quality  of  irascibility  seemed  to  be 
quite  pronounced.  Clearly  we  cannot  look  for  the  panacea  here. 
A  well-intentioned  Chinese  writer,  in  a  lately-contributed  mag- 
azine article,  quotes  a  saying  of  Confucius  that  "  Peace  is  a  condi- 
tion that  must  be  born  of  war."  Applying  the  maxim  to  this  coun- 
try, he  recommends  that  we  provide  ourselves  with  an  unsur- 
passably  powerful  navy  to  police  and  protect  our  coasts,  and  to 
thence  dictate  peace  to  all  the  world.  But  ruined  Phcenicia,  that 
once  great  maritime  power,  essayed  this  role  of  supremacy  many 
centuries  ago,  and  its  splendid  sea  port  of  Tyre — well,  we  only 
know  the  sunken  site  of  it  as  nnder  the  sea  which  it  sought  to  rule. 

A  recent  letter  received  from  one  who  had  had  long  experience 
of  literary  and  political  life,  gives  expression  to  a  quite  popular 
belief,  that  the  intensification  of  ivar  enginery,  together  with  the  ex- 
ceeding expensireness  of  its  production,  must  ere  long  operate  to 
bring  to  an  end  the  fighting  habit  of  the  nations.  '"  The  taste  for 
war,"  he  says,  "  is  being  gradually  cured  by  its  indulgence.  The 
cost  of  the  destructive  agencies  of  war  has  tseen  so  enormously  in- 
creased that  I  think  the  experience  of  nations  during  the  last  three 
years  will  have  demonstrated  that  there  is  nothing  to  be  gained 
hy  an  offensive  war  that  will  not  cost  more  than  it  can  possibly  be 
worth;  and  that  diplomacy  will  be  substituted  for  guns  and  powder 
"before  the  world  is  many  centuries  older." 

Well,  the  economic  argument  ought  to  help  along  the  remedy, 
and  it  certainly  has  influenced  many  advocates,  as  publicists,  parlia- 
mentarians, Socialists,  and  even  Anarchists;  for  it  must  be  kept  in 
view,  now  that  the  cure  of  anarchy  is  being  diligently  sought  after, 
that  there  are  those  among  the  ultra-agitators,  who,  driven  to 
frenzy  by  brooding  over  the  insatiable  demands  of  the  war  mon- 
ster ever  crying.  Give  I  Give!  have  brought  themselves  to  believe 
that  the  extinction  of  the  rulers  will  by-and-by  abolish  conscrip- 
tion, minimize  taxes,  and  bring  release  of  the  proletariat  from  mili- 
tary service, — a  good  sequence,  but  an  impossible  way  to  attain  it. 

There  are  those  among  the  wise  ones  of  the  world  who  may 
have  a  persuasion  that  the  stimulation  of  learning,  public  improve- 
ments and  utilities  generally  will  effect  much  in  overcoming  the  war 
spirit;  l)ut  the  great  and  now  fallen  empires  of  the  past  had  their 


»15 

libraries,  gymnasia,  public  baths,  and — when  Rome  came  to  rep- 
resent almost  the  then  known  world — their  famous  stoned  high- 
ways that  ran  to  all  parts  of  the  vast  domain.  We  may  have  all 
these  useful  public  possessions  in  greatest  abundance,  but,  lacking 
the  underlying  principle  founded  on  the  love  of  God  and  man, 
they  will  not  avail  as  nny  fii a  1  remedy  for  war  and  assurance  of 
peace. 

Nevertheless,  as  the  Law  was  a  schoolmaster  in  bringing  to 
Christ,  the  spread  of  the  humanitarian  motive,  with  its  leavening  of 
Christianity,  will  serve  as  a  handmaid  in  hastening  the  advent  of 
the  reign  of  peace.  But  the  one  essential  remedy  which  I  believe 
Ave  need  above  all  others  to  look  to  is  this:  "  The  gospel  of  Christ 
[which  is]  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation."  Not  simply  the  Glad 
Tidings  of  the  letter,  be  it  said,  for  well  we  know  it  has  been 
charged  upon  the  greatest  of  the  nations  claiming  this  knowledge — 
"  See  what  fighters  these  Christians  be! "  So  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  Glad  Tidings  was  proclaimed  nearly  two  millenniums  ago, 
do  v>-e  not  in  this  day,  this  very  year,  witness  the  fulfillment  of  what 
Paul  testified  in  his  epistle  to  the  Eomans,  that  "  the  name  of  God 
is  blasphemed  among  the  Gentiles  through  you,  as  it  is  written '"  ? 
For  thus  it  had  been  written  by  Israel's  seer,  in  telling  how  those 
who  made  claim  to  be  "  the  people  of  God,  and  are  gone  forth  out 
of  his  land,"  that  his  holy  name  '"was  profaned  among  the 
heathen,  whither  they  went."  Oh,  what  a  change  is  wrought  with 
the  power,  "  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation,"  which  brings  only 
blessing  and  not  blasphemy! 

This  effectual  remedy,  as  said  before,  must  run  through  the  life 
— whether  it  be  of  the  individual  or  the  nation.  The  w^ord  which 
came  to  Jeremiah  when  judgment  upon  the  favored  nation  hung 
in  the  balance,  was  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Is- 
rael, Amend  your  ways  and  your  doings,  and  I  will  cause  you  to 
dwell  in  this  place,"  repeating  to  them  the  promise  that  this  should 
be  so:  "  If  ye  thoroughly  amend  your  ways  and  your  doings,  if  ye 
thoroughly  execute  judgment  between  a  man  and  his  neighbor  "; 
saying  further  they  must  cease  from  oppression  and  come  away 
from  idolatry, — in  other  words,  out  of  the  lust  of  those  forbidden 
things  which  are  the  roots  of  war. 

Now,  this  necessary  amendment  in  order  for  the  remedy, — must 
it  not  begin  with  the  child?  With  the  twig  that  will  bend?  In 
large  showcases  in  the  basement  of  a  great  department  store  in  this 
city  may  be  seen  military  playthings  for  the  juveniles,  some  of  them 
elegant  and  costly,  representing  platoons  of  mimic  soldiers  of  the 
infantry,  and  gaily-caparisoned  cavalry,  lumbering  artillery,  brist- 
ling ramparts,  and  all  the  scenic  make-up  of  actual  warfare.  We 
shall  not  be  likely  to  see  these  things  in  the  playrooms  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Friends,  yet  they  are  common  in  the  commi  lity,  and  as 
educators  their  influence  must  be  pronomiced. 

It  is  an  easy  step  from  playing  soldier  in  the  nv      ry  to  march- 


216 

ing  171  irigade  along  the  streets^  with  real  undersized  guns,  and  fife 
and  drum,  and  the  contented  thought  that  if  we  may  do  this  as 
pupils  in  the  Sabbath  School  to  the  chant  of  "  Onward,  Christian 
Soldiers  !  "  we  are  in  the  right  road  to  the  overturning  of  the  bul- 
warks of  Satan.  The  remedy  applicable  here  is  a  closer  teaching  of 
the  truth  that  the  Christian  warfare  is  not  carnal,  but  spiritual,  to 
the  overturning  of  the  strongholds  of  evil;  so,  if  the  active  brigade 
be  wanted  for  the  boys,  let  it  be  with  other  implements,  as  for  the 
saving  of  life — a  substitute  which  has  been  adopted  in  various  di- 
rections. The  amended  drill  may  also  properly  be  with  the  Indian 
clubs,  affording  excellent  exercise,  whether  for  boys  or  for  girls, 
in  the  line  of  calisthenics. 

In  field  athletics,  the  intense  rivalry,  tending  to  many  serious 
abuses,  as  jealousies,  recriminations,  love  of  publicity,  stimulation 
of  the  betting  habit,  and  fierce  contests  marked  by  maimings,  and, 
at  times,  loss  of  life,  betoken  the  cultivation  of  a  lust  for  acquisi- 
tions which  are  not  happily  educational.  A  remedy  here,  recom- 
mended, but  far  too  infrequently  put  in  practice,  is  the  discontinu- 
ance of  the  publicly -lier aided  match  games  of  the  colleges  and  other 
scholastic  institutions.  This  would  easily  deduct  a  tenth  horn,  the 
reading  matter  of  the  daily  papers,  but  it  would  be  a  needed  step 
backward  in  the  direction  of  peace. 

In  the  schools,  lust  of  fame,  glory,  empire,  and  the  uplifting  of 
a  patriotism  wrenched  out  of  place,  is  very  much  fostered  through 
the  teaching  of  war  in  the  text-books  of  history.  Not  so  much  in  the 
salient  facts  concerning  any  particular  war,  especially  its  causes  and 
effects,  but  through  the  manner  in  which  the  mere  fighting  details 
are  exaggerated,  so  that  the  battle-loss  of  our  so-called  enemies  be- 
comes a  thing  to  exult  over.  I  know  this  well  from  my  youthful 
experience.  As  to  the  battle  pictures,  while  the  frightfully  realistic 
canvas  of  a  Verestschagin  may  partly  lift  the  illusion  of  glory  by 
a  glance  at  the  hideousness  of  the  field  of  carnage,  the  popular 
class-book  of  history  sufficiently  drapes  the  repulsive  part,  and  the 
young  mind  is  left  to  its  visions  of  the  special  prowess,  triumph 
and  renown  of  the  heroes  of  battle.  However,  I  believe  there  has 
been  an  amending  in  this  particular.  The  Sumner  bequest  to  Har- 
vard, creating  a  prize  for  approved  theses  on  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes without  resort  to  war,  was  a  valuable  educational  precedent. 
Similarly  commendable  was  the  effort  of  Lafayette  College,  some 
years  ago,  to  substitute  for  one  of  the  courses  in  pagan  classics,  with 
its  pro-war  and  often  immoral  ideals,  one  in  which  the  classical 
exponents  came  closer  to  the  Christian  standard.  (A  failure  of  the 
specially-contributed  fund,  I  believe,  was  the  cause  of  the  dropping 
of  this  rarely-tried  course.) 

As  our  student  reaches  manhood,  and  embarks,  mayhap,  in 
commerce  or  manufactures,  and  perchance  finds  his  country  en- 
gaged in  war  I  here  may  open  a  choice  of  courses  in  which  he  will 
need  to  reckc     closely  with  his  conscience.     If  he  has  rightly  ap- 


217 

propriated  the  lessons  or  influences  conducive  to  peace  which  have 
heretofore  been  laid  in  his  way,  he  will  not  make  gain  through 
furnishing  goods  or  material  to  be  used  in  carrying  on  war.  To 
instance  but  a  few:  The  Rotch  family,  of  Nantucket,  with  their 
neutral  shipping  and  whale  oil  commerce  during  the  Revolutionary 
and  later  wars;  an  Allen,  of  England,  who,  as  manufacturer  of 
chemical  products,  declined  a  very  lucrative  contract  for  certain 
goods  to  be  used  in  the  war  in  which  his  country  was  engaged;  a 
Cadbury,  who,  a  little  while  ago,  though  willing  to  supply,  at  cost, 
the  Queen's  special  gift  of  chocolate  for  her  soldiers  in  South 
Africa,  refused  thereafter  to  furnish  supplies  upon  regular  con- 
tracts of  profit;  the  Hustons,  iron  manufacturers,  who  could  not 
be  persuaded  to  furnish  armor-plate  to  the  government  during  the 
Civil  War,  even  though  such  action  may  have  been  looked  upon  as 
unpatriotic,  as  well  as  unnecessarily  self-denying. 

Further,  our  fair-minded  citizen  who  would  wish  practically  to 
apply  the  Scripture  obligation  to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves, 
would  welcome  such  harmonious  commercial  relatio7is  with  other  na- 
tions as  would  be  of  reciprocal  benefit,  and  not  be  heavily  weighted 
with  the  selfish  maxim  of  take  all  and  give  nothing.  Of  such  wisely- 
adjusted  international  traffic,  which  must  prove  a  great  conservator 
of  peace,  it  was  happily  remarked  by  Elihu  Burritt:  "  Commerce 
has  no  coimtry  but  the  world,  no  patriotism  but  an  earnest  interest 
in  the  well-being  of  all  the  nations.  Its  genius  in  this  respect  runs 
parallel  with  the  genius  of  Christianity,  though  in  a  lower  course — 
just  as  subterranean  rivers  run  parallel  with  those  that  show  their 
silver  currents  to  the  sun.  Commerce  repudiates  tvar  as  an  outrage 
^upon  its  domain.  It  will  not  obey  the  laws  of  war,  nor  recognize 
any  nation  as  an  enemy  with  which  it  has  or  may  have  intercourse." 
The  benevolent  thought  of  Burritt  in  this  direction  is  suggestively 
indicated  by  the  caption  of  some  of  his  cogent  essays,  as  that  on 
"  The  Waste  of  War  and  the  Winnings  of  Industry  ";  another,  on 
"  Cotton,  Commerce  and  Civilization  ";  a  third,  "  Wardrobe,  Webs 
and  Table-Ties  of  Brotherhood."  "V\1iat  a  bulwark,  what  a  remedy 
^ould  be  found  here,  could  we  apply  the  touchstone  of  Christ's 
commandment  to  this  which  is  destined  to  be  an  uppermost  topic  of 
general  discussion,  and  most  urgent  subject  for  diplomacy  and  leg- 
islation! And  so  likewise  in  the  matter  of  oppressive  trade  com- 
binations, the  fertile  source  of  endless  angry  contentions. 

In  conscientiously  manifesting  his  Christian  citizenship,  the  cit- 
izen and  voter  will  thereby  directly  provide,  and  speedily  so,  a  fore- 
most remedy  against  the  outburst  of  war.  The  rule  of  political 
action  recommended  may  be  concisely  expressed  by  that  vigorous 
Anglo-Saxon  word,  straightforwardness;  for,  as  Secretary  of  State 
Hay  tersely  stated  it  the  other  day,  in  speaking  of  the  better  di- 
plomacy, "  There  is  nothing  like  straightforwardness  to  beget  its 
like."  "  We  believe,"  was  the  conviction  hereupon  adopted  by  the 
National  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union  last  month,  at  Fort 


218 

Worth,  "  ^ye  believe  that  in  a  right  apprehension  of  the  ideals  and 
demands  of  Christian  citizenship  lies  the  hope  of  the  nation;  that 
no  citizenship  is  worthy  the  name  of  Christ  which  is  not  founded 
upon  divine  ideals  of  righteousness." 

Thus,  I  conclude,  applied  Christianity  is  the  only  assured  rem- 
edy for  war,  because  it  alone  has  its  foundation  on  the  immovable 
Eock.  There  have  been  formed  for  the  arrest  of  war — beneficially 
operative  after  their  measure — arbitral  councils,  and  treaties,  and 
truces  in  the  old  time,  in  the  middle  ages,  in  our  own  day  especially 
— even  up  to  the  hopeful  Pacific  Tribunal  at  The  Hague.  But 
there  have  never  been,  as  there  are  now,  and  as  many  observers  are 
remarking,  such  legions  of  men  in  camps  or  in  reserve  in  readiness 
for  the  fray,  or  such  vast  treasure  applied  on  account  of  wars  pres- 
ent or  that  threaten  to  come,  or  as  interest  and  pensions  due  to 
those  that  are  past.  Nevertheless,  solemn  pacts  will  be  made  to  be 
broken  or  evaded,  while  men  remain  largely  unsubjected  to  the 
limitations  of  the  cross.  John,  the  disciple,  was  still  unescaped 
from  the  law,  when  he  plead  that  the  Lord  Jesus  should  smite  with 
his  wonderful  power  the  offending  village  of  a  people  who  had  no 
dealings  with  the  Jews.  In  the  same  mood  was  Peter,  when,  with 
his  sword,  he  cut  off  the  ear  of  the  servant  of  the  high  priest.  Later 
along  in  life,  better  instructed  of  the  Spirit,  we  behold  John  breath- 
ing only  love,  and  the  naturally-impetuous  Peter  discoursing  how 
to  "  be  pitiful,  be  courteous."  Ezra,  the  scribe,  and  his  company, 
in  carrying  unguarded  over  the  desert  the  temple  treasures,  and 
Penn  and  his  people  in  founding  a  State  without  one  weapon  of 
defence  while  surrounded  by  those  accounted  as  hostiles,  found 
equally  the  remedy  against  fighting  to  be  in  him  of  whom  it  was 
declared,  "  The  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder,  and  his 
name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counselor,  The  mighty  God,  The 
everlasting  Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace."  While  faithfully  laying 
hold  of  every  proper  aid,  let  us  especially  exalt  the  effective,  divine- 
ly-appointed remedy,  "  The  Gospel  of  Christ:  for  it  is  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation." 

The  Chaiem^x:  "The  Influence  of  Quaker  Peace  Ideals  in 
Our  National  Life,"  is  the  title  of  the  next  paper,  by  Dr.  0.  IMward 
Janney,  Baltimore,  Md. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  QUAKER  PEACE  IDEALS  ON  OUR 
NATIONAL  LIFE. 

BY  0.  EDWAED  JANNEY,  M.D.,  BALTIMOEE,  MD. 

The  Quaker  ideal  of  peace  is  well  expressed  iu  the  prophetic 
words,  "  They  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and  their 
spears  into  pruning  hooks;  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against 
nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more."  '"  They  shall  not 
hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  my  holy  mountain;  for  the  earth  shall  be 
full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea." 


219 

Acknowledging,  with  other  men,  the  necessity  for  government 
in  order  that  there  may  he  an  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty  and  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness,  and  acknowledging  further  that  orderly  govern- 
ment requires  an  organized  civil  force  to  control  the  unruly, 
Friends  have  always  maintained  a  consistent  opposition  to  warfare 
and  warlike  preparations. 

To  what  extent  has  this  ideal  of  peace  influenced  our  national 
life  and  affected  our  every-day  affairs? 

MII.it A RY  SEEVICE. 

The  Friends  who  founded  Pennsylvania  and  those  who  con- 
trolled its  affairs  for  seventy-four  years  bore  a  strong  testimony 
against  conscription  and  the  organization  of  a  militia,  although  fre- 
quently urged  thereto  by  the  English  government,  by  their  succes- 
sive governors  and  by  the  clamor  of  the  militant  majority  of  their 
own  community. 

Although  wars  raged  about  them  and  invasions  threatened,  and 
although  the  colonies  to  the  north  and  to  the  south  suffered  from 
the  horrors  of  warfare,  Pennsylvania  refused  to  authorize  move- 
ments of  aggression  and  found  little  necessity  for  measures  of  de- 
fence. At  last,  w^hen  unjust  encroachments  on  the  rights  and  prop- 
erty of  the  Indians  had  roused  them  to  reluctant  revenge,  and 
popular  clamor  among  the  colonists  demanded  war.  Friends  volun- 
tarily relinquished  the  government  to  their  opponents  rather  than 
prove  false  to  their  peace  principles.  "  When  the  crucial  nature  of 
the  question  became  clear,  and  either  place  or  principle  had  to  be 
sacrificed,  their  decision  was  in  favor  of  the  sanctity  of  principle. 
.  .  .  The  Yearly  Meeting  never  gave  any  uncertain  sound." 
(Sharpless.) 

Thenceforward,  although  Friends  did  not  take  part  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Colonial  or  State  government,  yet  the  principles 
in  which  they  trusted  continued  in  force  to  a  considerable  extent, 
and  do  so  yet.  This  influence  is  shown  to  be  greater  when  it  is 
made  clear  that  the  Frame  of  Government  wrought  out  by  William 
Penn  and  his  counsellors,  "  though  changed  in  form  many  times, 
shaped  all  future  constitutions  of  Pennsylvania,  of  other  States, 
and  of  the  Federal  Union."  (Sharpless.)  To  the  Friends  of  Penn's 
colony,  therefore,  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  indebted,  in 
great  degree,  for  their  present  form  of  government,  and  some  of  the 
principles  which  underlie  good  government. 

It  would  not  seem  to  be  taking  too  much  for  granted,  therefore, 
to  ascribe  to  this  Friendly  element,  thus  introduced,  some  of  the 
beneficent  traits  of  the  American  people.  Among  these  are  oppo- 
sition to  a  large  standing  army,  to  compulsory  military  service  in 
time  of  peace,  and  exemption  from  such  service  in  time  of  war.  To 
this  influence,  also,  may  perhaps  be  traced  in  part  the  generally 
peaceable  character  of  the  American  people,  who  liave  never  entered 
into  war  except  when  reluctantly  forced  into  it  by  the  pressure  of 


220 

circumstances,  and  then  always  in  opposition  to  a  strenuous  protest 
from  a  large  number  of  our  citizens.  The  attitude  of  our  nation 
towards  others,  with  rare  exceptions,  has  been  one  of  peace,  jus- 
tice and  good  feeling. 

When  we  compare  the  happy  condition  of  our  citizens,  as  to 
compulsory  military  service,  with  those  of  France  and  Germany, 
where  the  military  spirit  is  rife,  it  must  be  admitted  that  an  in- 
fluence has  been  at  work  among  us  that  has  not  been  felt  on  the 
continent,  and  some  of  this  has  been  exerted  by  Friends. 

THE  INDIANS. 

The  just  and  peaceable  relations  with  the  Indians  established 
by  the  Quaker  colonists  produced  and  ensured  harmony  so  long 
at  it  was  continued,  and  trouble  with  the  red  man  arose  only  when 
unjust  and  warlike  encroachments  were  permitted. 

Although  an  unrighteous  Indian  policy  has  been  continued  for 
150  years,  with  its  inevitable  evil  consequences,  yet  the  Quaker  ideal 
has  been  kept  ever  before  the  American  people,  and  slowly,  slowly 
our  government  has  advanced  toward  it,  until  in  President  Grant 
and  some  of  our  recent  administrators  the  friendly  method  of  deal- 
ing with  the  Indians  has  been  approached,  with  much  success  and 
with  great  hope  for  the  future. 

COUETS  OF  AEBITRATION. 

For  the  prevention  of  disputes  and  as  a  substitute  for  armed 
conflicts  Friends  have  offered  arbitration  between  individuals  and 
between  nations  as  the  ideal  as  well  as  practical  Christian  method. 

Here  again  mankind  is  slowly  emerging  from  darkness  into 
light,  leaving  behind  the  trial  by  duel  and,  we  believe,  the  trial 
by  warfare,  and  advancing  towards  the  frame  of  mind  that  is  will- 
ing to  accept  arbitration  as  a  just  and  proper  method  of  deciding 
contests. 

In  the  history  of  our  nation  many  international  disagreements 
have  been  st)  decided,  some  of  them  involving  millions  of  money 
and  preceded  by  heated  arguments  and  antagonistic  opinions  that 
would  ordinarily  have  led  to  bloodshed. 

Numberless  disputes  between  individuals  are  now  settled  by 
arbitration  and  lawsuits  are  thus  often  avoided.  The  court  of  ar- 
bitration is  gaining  popularity,  and,  being  of  equal  standing  with 
the  law  courts,  is  being  appealed  to  more  and  more.  In  Baltimore, 
for  instance,  the  Board  of  Trade,  proceeding  under  an  act  of  Legis- 
lature, has  established  such  a  court,  whose  decisions  are  as  binding 
as  though  made  by  the  courts  of  law.  Indeed,  it  is  not  unusual  for 
disputants  to  agree  to  abide  by  the  legal  opinion  of  a  judge  or  em- 
inent counsel,  thus  adopting  the  principle  of  arbitration.  There  is 
also  constant  demand  for  the  settlement  of  all  disagreements  be- 
tween employers  and  their  employees  by  this  method,  of  the  appli- 
cation of  which  there  have  been  some  recent  instances. 


221 

In  all  of  this  advance  towards  the  peaceful  settlement  of  disputes 
Friends  can  certainly  claim  that  their  unswerving  testimony  in 
favor  of  arbitration  has  had  influence. 

THE  CHURCH. 

It  has  often  been  asserted  that  the  principles  and  testimonies 
of  the  Society  of  Friends  have  been  so  generally  adopted  by  relig- 
ious people  everywhere  that  the  need  of  our  continued  independent 
existence  has  vanished.  An  answer  to  this  may  be  found  in  the  atti- 
tude of  the  religious  world  toward  war.  The  ideal  of  peaceable- 
ness  expressed  by  the  Master  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and 
made  their  own  by  the  Society  of  Friends,  is  realized  but  inade- 
quately by  most  Christian  denominations,  whose  leaders  are  apt  to 
weaken  in  the  face  of  a  strong  popular  demand  for  war,  and  too 
often  give  their  support  to  measures  of  conquest  or  bloody  retalia- 
tion. Very  few  churches  would  discipline  a  member  for  engaging 
in  military  service;  the  thought  of  doing  so  would  hardly  occur  to 
them.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  in  the  Church,  the  representative  of 
the  Prince  of  Peace,  his  message  of  non-resistance  finds  but  tardy 
acceptance. 

EDUCATION. 

The  well-known  testimony  of  Friends  in  favor  of  the  guarded 
education  of  the  young  was  as  far  removed  as  possible  from  mili- 
tary training  in  schools,  and  in  this  a  consistent  course  has  always 
been  followed.  It  is  not  claiming  too  much  to  say  that  their  ideas 
have  influenced  those  who  have  had  charge  of-  education  in  this 
country,  especially  as  there  have  always  been  Friends  who,  as  teach- 
ers and  superintendents  of  instruction,  have  extended  our  Friendly 
thought. 

However  this  may  be,  it  is  evident  that  the  advisability  or  ne- 
cessity of  military  education  has  never  taken  hold  of  the  American 
people.  The  army  has  its  "West  Point,  to  be  sure,  and  the  navy  its 
Annapolis,  and  so  it  must  be  as  long  as  the  people  allow  an  army 
or  a  navy  to  exist;  but  aside  from  these,  it  is  only  here  and  there, 
especially  in  reform  schools,  that  military  discipline  is  enforced, 
and  in  these  it  is  the  habits  of  attention,  order  and  obedience  and 
physical  development  that  are  sought,  rather  than  the  inculcation 
of  a  warlike  spirit. 

Owing  to  the  accession  of  military  feeling  caused  by  the  late  war 
with  Spain,  a  number  of  attempts  have  been  made  recently  to  in- 
troduce military  training  into  the  public  schools;  but  the  senti- 
ment, as  well  as  the  judgment,  of  the  people  is  opposed  to  this  en- 
deavor, which  is  doomed  to  failure. 

CURRENT  LITERATURE. 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  war  spirit  is  so  prominent  in 
weekly  and  monthly  journals.  Most  of  this  is  to  be  accounted  for 
by  our  experience  of  the  past  four  years,  as  before  that  period  there 


222 

was  little  of  it.  Especially  unfortunate  is  it  that  the  Juvenile  press 
is  so  full  of  war  stories  and  the  glorification  of  warlike  deeds.  In 
fact;,  the  most  popular  monthly  of  this  class  is  one  of  the  greatest 
sinners  in  this  respect. 

When  the  present  attack  of  temporary  insanity  has  passed  and 
reason  has  once  more  regained  its  throne,  our  ideal  of  peace  will 
seem  all  the  more  beautiful,  and  the  young  will  be  taught  that  the 
victories  of  civil  life  often  far  eclipse  those  of  war,  and  do  not  leave 
behind  remorse,  nor  the  scars  of  conflict,  nor  the  moan  of  the  widow 
and  orphan. 

On  the  whole,  it  may  be  concluded  that  the  Quaker  ideal  of 
peace  has  spread  among  the  American  people  and  deeply  influenced 
our  national  life.  May  this  high  ideal  continue  to  be  held  aloft 
until  all  people  shall  come  within  its  ennobling  influence,  and  the 
spirit  of  peace  shall  hover  over  the  nations  with  healing  on  his 
wings! 

The  Chairman:  "Peace  as  Involved  in  the  Christian 
Method,"  by  Eufus  M.  Jones,  of  Haverford  College,  is  the  last 
paper  on  the  program  of  the  evening  and  of  the  Conference. 


PEACE  AS  INTVOLVED  IN  THE  CHEISTIAN  METHOD. 

BY  DE.  RUFUS  M.  JOXES,  HAVERFORD,  PA. 

The  scientists  of  the  century  have  been  forcing  us  to  realize 
that  Nature's  method  is  ruthless  competition.  She  gives  success  to 
the  strong  and  extermination  to  the  weak.  Her  realm  is  an  end- 
less battlefield — a  fierce  struggle  for  existence  where  the  weak  fat- 
ten the  strong,  and  the  unfit  are  mercilessly  sacrificed  to  the  fit. 
livery  step  of  the  slow  advance  from  the  lower  forms  of  life  has 
been  marked  by  the  weeding  out  of  the  helpless  and  the  survival 
of  the  strong  and  physically  fit.  "  Eed  in  tooth  and  claw,"  Nature 
proclaims  that  strength,  power,  force,  might,  fitness  to  survive,  are 
the  only  qualities  for  which  she  cares.  Few  have  any  conception 
of  the  awful  slaughter  which  goes  on  day  by  day  beneath  the  peace- 
ful waters  of  the  sea.  Here  everything  lives  on  something  else,  and 
in  the  act  of  seizing  its  prey  it  is  dodging  its  own  foe.  There  is 
no  corner  of  the  ocean  which  is  not  a  veritable  Indian  jungle  where 
each  lives  on  the  life  of  another.  This  law  of  the  jungle,  this 
merciless  method  of  nature,  everywhere  marks  primitive  man.  An- 
thropology, archeology,  ancient  history,  all  tell  the  same  tale — 
everywhere  tribe  at  war  with  tribe,  man  arming  himself  against 
his  enemy.  The  very  divisions  of  the  earth  among  the  peoples  of 
it  have  been  made  with  an  eye  to  protection  and  defense.  But 
the  little  new-born  child  comes  with  an  even  surer  record  of  this 
age-long  warfare  than  any  which  the  monuments  of  Assyria  or  the 
ruins  of  Karnak  p-ive  us.    His  hereditary  instincts  are  the  deepest 


223 

scars  of  these  centuries  of  strife  and  survival  of  the  strong.  The 
primitive  instincts  are  fear  and  anger;  followed  by  the  hardly  less 
primitive  instinct — love  of  power.  They  are  egoistic,  self-preserva- 
tive instincts.  They  are  in  the  very  structure  of  the  race,  and  they 
have  their  roots  deep  in  an  immemorial  past,  when  human  life 
meant  struggle  for  existence  and  survival  by  the  law  of  might.  Na- 
ture's whole  concern  has  been  to  produce  a  physical  being  with  a 
fitness  to  survive  in  a  competitive  struggle  for  existence. 

^ow  Christianity  reverses  this  whole  ideaj  Christ  introduces 
a  type  of  life  which  advances  on  precisely  the  opposite  principle. 
He  declares  that  in  the  kingdom  where  he  rules  a  selfish  struggle 
for  existence  carries  with  it  extinction — ^'  He  that  seeks  to  save  his 
life  shall  lose  it," — and  its  very  method  of  advance  is  by  the  prop- 
agation of  love  which  forgets  self  in  the  effort  to  bless  others. 

The  true  way  to  study  the  peace  idea  at  the  heart  of  Chris- 
tianity is  not  to  make  a  collection  of  peace-texts,  but  to  develop 
the  Christian  view  of  man  and  society  and  to  see  whether  any  place 
is  left  here  for  war  and  strife.  Our  question  therefore  must  be, 
What  does  Christ's  conception  of  man  and  society  involve?  What 
lies  prophetic  in  his  revelation  of  man? 

Xothing  is  surer  than  that  he  thinks  of  man — any  man — as  a 
potential  son  of  God.  He  puts  man  on  a  new  level.  He  sets  forth 
his  new  conception  and  calls  men  to  it,  in  order,  he  says,  "  that 
ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  in  Heaven."  His  new 
commandment  is,  "  that  you  love  even  as  I  have  loved."  His 
"  follow  me  "  is  no  mere  call  to  walk  over  the  same  Syrian  roads 
behind  Him,  but  a  call  to  the  same  attitude  of  life  and  an  invita- 
tion into  a  brotherhood  which  has  its  origin  in  a  Divine  Father- 
hood. The  characteristic  feature  of  the  Son  of  Man  is  his  de- 
votion to  the  business  of  saving  and  perfecting  others — his  struggle 
for  the  life  of  others.  To  give,  to  share,  and  to  transmit  what  he 
has  received  is  his  unfailing  purpose.  To  win  by  defeating  others 
is  as  inconceivable  a  course  for  him  as  it  would  be  for  the  tiger 
to  win  his  prey  by  methods  of  persuasion.  He  reverses  the  whole 
process  of  advance.  Victories  are  to  be  won  by  the  inherent  power 
of  light  and  truth  and  love,  and  if  they  cannot  be  won  that  way, 
then'they  are  not  to  be  won  at  all.  Men  are  to  be  drawn  to  God  on 
the  simple  ground  alone  that  He  loves  them :  and  then,  in  their  ef- 
forts to  overcome  a  world  organized  on  the  principle  of  the  power 
of  the  strongest,  they  are  to  make  their  appeal  to  the  silent  but 
invincible  power  of  love  and  truth. 

There  can  be  no  mistaking  the  fact  that  this  was  his  method. 
There  can  be  as  little  doubt  that  he  bequeathed  this  method  to  his 
followers.  I  shall  not  now  ask  whether  such  a  method  is  practica- 
ble in  a  world  like  ours  or  not,  though  one  can  say  that  so  far  it 
has  had  no  adequate  trial,  and  we  must  expect  such  transforma- 
tions to  be  slow.  But  I  shall  consider  the  question,  which  is  of 
some  interest,  namely.  Why  is  the  law  of  competition  reversed  by 


224 

Christianity?     Why  do  we  here  go  over  from  the  law  of  struggle 
for  existence  to  the  method  of  love  and  sacrifice  for  others? 

The  first  reason  is  that  humanity  found  a  new  goal  in  Christ 
M'hich  could  be  attained  only  by  some  new  method.  So  long  as  the 
goal  is  the  attainment  of  material  goods  there  must  be  a  sharp 
competition  and  an  occasion  for  warfare.  The  supply  of  good 
things  is  limited,  and  whatever  one  gets  diminishes  what  the  rest 
can  have.  The  demand  for  such  things  exceeds  the  supply.  The 
struggle,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  becomes  a  keen  one.  The 
M'hole  breed  of  selfish  passions  are  pushed  to  the  front.  It  is  for 
the  vital  interests  of  the  stronger  to  put  down  the  weak,  and,  by  a 
certain  natural  selection,  those  who  can  fight  best  survive  and  pro- 
duce a  race  like  themselves.  But  the  moment  the  goal  becomes  the 
attainment  of  some  spiritual  possession,  the  supply  of  it  exceeds  the 
demand!  The  more  of  it  one  gets,  the  more  of  it  there  is  for  oth- 
ers. It  increases  in  proportion  as  it  is  possessed.  Whien  one  man 
rises  to  the  height  of  a  new  idea,  the  whole  world  is  richer  for  it 
forever,  and  all  souls  feel  the  power  of  it.  When  one  soul  sees 
some  new  beauty  and  learns  how  to  share  it,  he  has  made  it  at  once 
the  common  possession  of  the  race.  Wlien  one  individual  by 
stricter  obedience  has  caught  a  new  truth  and  voiced  it,  all  men 
everywhere  feed  upon  it  and  add  cubits  to  their  stature.  When 
some  one  person  puts  his  life  into  an  heroic  deed,  that  becomes  a 
universal  legacy.  If  it  can  be  revealed  that  God  is  love  and  that 
men  can  partake  of  his  nature,  then  no  amount  of  sharing  can  ever 
exhaust  such  a  possession,  and  there  will  be  no  competitive  struggle 
to  win  one's  own  share. 

But  the  truth  is  deeper  than  this  and  involves  more  than  we 
have  yet  touched.  For  as  soon  as  the  human  goal  is  shown  to  be 
the  possession  of  a  spiritual  attainment,  it  becomes  clear  that  this 
can  be  attained  only  through  the  method  of  sharing.  The  surest 
way  to  shrivel  and  dry  up  is  to  live  for  self-perfection  alone.  In  the 
spiritual  life  it  is  an  eternal  fact  that  no  high  quality  can  be  won 
if  it  is  directly  sought  for  self.  If  it  is  impossible  to  catch  a  spin- 
ning top  to  see  what  the  motion  is  like;  if  it  is  impossible  to  turn  on 
the  light  to  see  what  the  darkness  is  like,  it  is  equally  impossible  to 
produce  the  saintly  spirit  alon^  any  line  of  self-interest.  To  gain 
any  pleasure  from  any  action  one  must  forget  all  thought  of  pleas- 
ure and  become  absorbed  in  the  act.  To  become  spiritual  one 
must  throw  his  life  into  the  work  of  helping  others  win  their  vic- 
tories, and  lo!  he  finds  that  nothing  he  gives  is  ever  given  away. 
By  losing  his  life  in  the  glowing  purpose  to  help  men  come  to  the 
possession  of  their  true  selves,  he  finds  his  own  life  enriching  and 
deepening,  and  he  enters  upon  an  ever-heightening  life.  The  loss 
is  gain,  the  giving  makes  rich,  the  sharing  increases  the  possession. 
This  principle  lies  at  the  very  heart  of  the  Christian  religion,  and, 
because  it  is  true,  no  one  who  fully  enters  upon  the  higher  levels 


225 

of  Christian  experience  can  consent  to  live  by  the  law  of  might 
which  breeds  war  and  sets  men  everywhere  against  each  other. 

The  struggle  now  will  be  not  to  see  how  much  one  can  get,  but 
rather  how  much  one  can  give,  not  to  see  how  many  men's  share 
one  can  seize  and  appropriate,  but  rather  to  see  how  many  one  can 
help  to  enter  and  sliare  the  common  blessings  of  the  Father's  gift. 

But  there  is  still  another  reason  why  Christianity  supplants  war 
with  a  method  of  peace  and  love.  Christ  introduces  the  organic 
idea  of  society.  We  pass  at  once  and  forever  from  the  individual 
as  an  atom  to  the  individual  as  a  member  of  the  whole.  There  can 
be  no  isolated  personal  perfection,  for  our  lives  are  so  tightly  linked 
that  when  one  member  suffers  all  suffer,  and  when  one  rises  all 
rise.  Human  destiny  is  a  social  affair  and  no  man  can  live  unto 
himself  or  die  unto  himself.  There  is  a  gravitation  finer  and  sub- 
tler than  that  which  holds  the  worlds  in  a  universe,  and  this  binds 
the  lives  of  human  beings  into  a  society  in  which  each  must  share 
the  rise  and  fall  of  all  the  members.  It  is,  then,  our  end  not  to 
realize  some  little  goal  of  personal  attainment  for  which  we  live, 
but  to  raise,  be  it  ever  so  little,  the  whole  level  of  human  life  and  to 
bring  into  actual  existence  a  kingdom  of  God — a  society  of  brothers 
by  the  divine  right  of  sonship  to  God.  The  sublimest  outlook  of 
Christianity  is  its  prophecy  of  a  society  founded  in  brotherhood, 
and  deeper  still,  in  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  its  most 
sacred  message  to  man  is  the  call,  "  by  the  mercies  of  God,"  to  join 
in  the  work  of  making  that  prophecy  come  true.  Now  the  only 
way  such  an  ideal  can  be  wrought  out,  the  only  way  such  a  new 
Jerusalem  can  be  brought  down  from  God  to  become  a  fact  before 
our  eyes,  is  for  a  man  in  this  present  world  to  go  to  living  as  a  son 
of  God  and  treating  all  other  men  as  possible  sons.  This  is  precise- 
ly Christ's  method.  The  strong  are  to  bear  the  infirmities  of  the 
weak,  those  who  have  received  are  to  give,  those  who  have  seen  are 
to  help  others  see,  and  those  who  have  found  are  to  become  the 
seekers  after  others.  That  such  an  idea  involves  peace  and  makes 
war  impossible  is  as  plain  as  the  sun  at  high  noon,  and  this  is  incon- 
testably  the  Christian  position. 

But  some  one  says,  "  This  is  a  remote  ideal  which  will  be  all 
right  when  the  heavenly  conditions  arrive  for  realizing  it,  but  now 
we  are  in  a  world  where  men  have  selfish  passions,  where  the  law  of 
competition  rules,  and  where  one  gets  only  what  he  struggles  and 
fights  for.  No  such  millennium  is  in  sight.  Must  we  not  adjust 
to  the  conditions  of  this  present  world?"  The  answer  is  simple. 
There  never  will  be  any  heavenly  conditions,  there  never  will  be  an 
actual  state  of  brotherhood  and  love  unless  those  who  see  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  new  method  go  to  living  by  it  at  whatever  hazard 
and  cost,  and  so  make  this  ideal  less  remote,  and  bring  the  millen- 
nium a  jot  nearer.  The  single  question  to  ask  is.  Which  is  the 
true  way  of  life,  the  law  of  the  jungle,  somewhat  modified  and  re- 
fined perhaps,  or  the  law  of  love  and  brotherhood,  the  organic  so- 


226 

ciety  where  each  lives  for  all?  If  man  hecomes  himself  and  shows 
his  real  nature  only  when  he  makes  his  life  contribute  to  the  whole 
total  of  life  and  happiness,  then  there  can  be  no  question  which 
course  a  man  should  take  nor  which  course  is  the  heroic  one,  for 
that  course  is  most  heroic  which  makes  a  man  most  a  man. 

Too  long  we  have  allowed  the  world  to  think  of  us  merely  as 
non-combatants,  as  sponsor  to  the  idea  of  non-resistance,  and  we 
have  been  looked  on  with  pity  as  a  weak  and  passive  folk.  This 
( 'hristian  method  here  outlined  is  no  more  passive  than  is  that  of 
the  most  strenuous  fighter  on  the  world's  bead-roll.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  gloriously  positive.  It  is  no  withdrawal  from  danger  or 
suffering,  but  rather  it  involves  a  genuine  sharing  of  the  world's 
burdens  and  struggles  in  a  patient  labor  to  make  righteousness  and 
peace  the  very  conditions  of  human  life.  "  Put  on  the  whole 
armor,"  says  the  great  advocate  of  the  Christian  method,  writing 
from  Caesar's  prison.  "  I  have  fought  the  good  fight,"  is  his  fare- 
v,-ell  word  to  his  young  disciple.  "  Quit  you  like  men  "  is  his  call 
to  those  who  must  take  up  the  banner  he  is  laying  down.  It  is  a 
noble  word,  but  its  full  power  comes  out  only  wlien  we  see  what 
it  means  to  be  a  man.  "  Quit  you  like  men;  be  strong."  These 
words  must  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  new  revelation  of  what  it 
means  to  be  a  man — a  being  who  realizes  his  place  in  the  uni- 
verse of  spirit  and  who  sees  that  he  has  a  contribution  to  make  to 
this  growing  kingdom  of  God.  As  fast  as  such  men  come  the  possi- 
bility of  war  diminishes;  as  man  on  the  new  level  enters,  man  on  the 
old  level  goes  out. 

"  I  told  them,"  says  Fox,  when  they  were  trying  to  enlist  him 
in  the  army  of  the  Commonwealth,  "  that  I  lived  in  virtue  of  that 
life  and  power  which  does  away  with  the  occasion  for  all  war." 
The  man  who  says  that  has  discovered  the  fundamental  idea  of 
manhood.  As  fast  as  society  becomes  composed  of  such  men  war 
vanishes  by  as  certain  a  law  as  that  which  has  locked  up  the  ptero- 
dactyl and  megatherium  in  the  iron  hills,  and  swept  the  earth  of 
the  dodo. 

It  was  on  just  this  sense  of  the  worth  of  man  that  our  poet 
Whittier  based  his  opposition  to  war  and  his  mesage  of  peace: 

"  Give  human  nature  reverence  for  the  sake 
Of  one  who  bore  it ;  making  it  divine 
With  the  ineffable  tenderness  of  God. 
Let  common  need,  the  brotherhood  of  prayer, 
The  heirship  of  an  unknown  destiny, 
The  unsolved  mystery  round  about  ns,  make 
A  man  more  precious  than  the  gold  of  Ophir. 
Sacred,  inviolate,  unto  whom  all  things 
Should  minister,  as  outward  types  and  signs 
Of  the  eternal  beauty  which  fulfills 
The  one  great  purpose  of  creation.  Love, 
The  sole  necessity  of  earth  and  heaven." 


227 

The  Chairman:  The  discussion  of  the  papers  will  be  opened 
l)y  Jolm  Iv  Garrett. 

John  B.  Gaebett:  It  seems  to  nic  that  discussion  implies  that 
there  are  some  tlioiights  which  are  to  l)e  corrected,  or  some  argu- 
ments that  are  faulty,  or  some  opinions  expressed  with  which  one 
must  take  issue.  Xo  one  of  these  conditions  exists  to-night;  and 
I  feel,  for  one,  that  the  time  for  discussion  has  passed.  You  will 
not  be  surprised  if  I  say  that,  holding  the  position  I  have  in  ref- 
erence to  this  Conference,  I  have  felt  a  burden  resting  upon  me 
throughout  the  past  three  days.  I  will  not  admit  that  I  have  had 
anxiety,  for  I  think  that  I  have  had  a  faith  that  has  enabled  me 
to  live  above  that  condition ;  but  1  have  had  a  profound  and  prayer- 
ful desire  that  the  best  spirit  which  has  pervaded  the  Conference 
at  any  time  might  live  with  us  to  its  close.  I  have  certainly  de- 
sired that  this  Conference  might  close  with  a  spirit  of  peace  in  the 
heart  God-given,  and  that  we  might  find  rest  in  one  another's  com- 
pany, and  that  the  spirit  of  devotion  might  hover  about  us.  I 
therefore  feel  that  it  would  be  a  mistake  if  1  or  any  other  were 
at  this  stage  of  our  proceedings  to  begin  to  discuss  principles  or 
conclusions,  or  do  aught  by  utterance  that  would  mar  the  "  weight," 
as  we  Friends  call  it,  with  which  we  approach  the  conclusion  of 
our  meeting. 

So,  dismissing  from  my  own  mind  not  a  few  thoughts  that  I 
have  felt  merit  some  expression,  and  w-hich  I  would  have  been  will- 
ing to  utter,  were  the  time  opportune,  I  want  to  say  only  this. 
From  the  fact  that  we  have  been  together  during  these  three  days 
and  have  feasted  from  a  richly-laden  table,  which,  by  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  has  been  spread  before  us,  we  have,  every  one  of  us, 
a  new  responsibility  laid  upon  us,  and  new  privileges  likewise  given 
us.  We  represent  many  communities,  scattered  over  this  continent 
far  and  wide.  There  are  within  the  hearing  of  my  voice  many  gifted 
men  and  women  who  are  accustomed  to  being  the  mouthpieces  in 
those  communities,  and  whose  influence  is  potential  over  the  life  of 
communities,  the  life  of  States,  the  life  of  churches.  My  appeal 
to  you,  dear  friends,  to-night  is  that  you  carry  home  with  you  to 
your  several  places  of  abode  and  of  service  all  that  it  is  possible  for 
your  minds  and  hearts  to  carry;  and  that,  when  you  return  to  your 
work,  you  remember  the  responsibility  which  arises  from  the  oppor- 
tunities which  are  presented  to  you.  Do  not  go  back  to  your  work 
in  the  spirit  in  which  you  left  it  when  you  came  here,  but  go  with 
the  sense  of  responsibility  to  share  in  the  richest  way  possible  with 
those  among  whom  you  dwell  the  spirit  of  that  to  which  we  have 
been  listening. 

I  have  already  accepted  an  invitation  from  one  community  of 
Friends  not  far  away  to  speak  to  them  with  regard  to  this  Peace 
Conference.  I  hope  that  similar  invitations  will  come  to  scores  of 
you.     Does  anyone  doul)t  that  the  opportunity  which  we  have  en- 


228 

joyed  was  not  of  man's  creating?  I  do  not.  I  believe  that  it  was 
in  the  providence  of  God  that  we  were  called  together,  and  I  be- 
lieve that  He  who  brought  us  together  has  condescended  to  our 
weakness  and  to  our  need,  and  has  manifested  himself  as  a  very 
present  God  and  Saviour  in  our  midst,  from  hour  to  hour,  and 
from  day  to  day;  and  that  when  we  come  to  part  He  will  dismiss 
us  with  His  blessing. 

Nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century  have  passed  since  divisions 
began  in  the  Society  of  Friends,  attended  in  the  second  quarter  of 
the  nineteenth  century  with  many  an  animosity  and  many  a  heart- 
burning. Friends  of  every  connection  to  whom  I  speak:  I  rejoice 
with  thanksgiving  that  we  are  not  living  to-day  in  that  period.  I 
rejoice  that  out  of  this  Conference  shall  come  blessings  that  shall 
tend  to  peace  among  ourselves.  God  has  had  His  holy  purposes 
in  bringing  us  here.  If  our  hearts  are  open  hearts  He  has  begun 
to  f  ilfil  those  purposes.  As  we  live  in  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice, 
of  devotion,  of  love  one  to  another  that  has  been  so  beautifully 
portrayed  to  us  to-night  as  the  spirit  of  the  everlasting  Gospel  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  that  work  shall  go  on  to  perfec- 
tion, and  this  occasion,  little  though  it  may  have  seemed  to  us  as 
we  gathered  on  the  morning  of  day  before  yesterday,  shall  bear  its 
rich  fruitage  in  the  progress  of  civilization,  and  the  winning  of  the 
world  to  the  kingdom  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  God  grant  it:  and 
may  everyone  of  us  who  is  here  to-night  be  the  rich  and  abundant 
sharer  in  the  blessing  which  is  already  dropping  from  His  hand. 

Anna  Beatthwaite  Thomas:  There  is  one  thing  that  has 
pressed  upon  my  heart  all  day,  and  I  want  to  speak  of  it;  I  mean 
the  loud  call  that,  in  the  providence  of  God,  comes  to  this  country. 
I  do  not  think  that  we  have  a  clear  idea  of  what  America  was — the 
ideal  of  America — to  the  peoples  of  the  world.  It  has  already  been 
brought  before  us  in  the  words  of  that  Norwegian  who  said,  "  Does 
that  great  republic  still  live  ?  "  That  ideal  has  lived  in  the  hearts 
of  the  peoples  of  the  world,  especially  of  those  under  less  favorable 
conditions.  It  is  the  ideal  of  love  and  of  home,  of  right  and  of 
liberty,  of  refuge  for  the  oppressed  and  for  the  downtrodden.  That 
ideal  has  been  rudely  broken  to  a  great  extent  by  recent  events. 

I  have  been  confronted  with  the  thought  recently  that  the  So- 
ciety of  Friends  has  no  special  call  just  now  to  work  for  peace.  We 
have  not  heard  that  in  this  Conference;  but  I  know  it  is  the  thought 
of  some  Friends.  But  this  idea  is  all  wrong.  We  have  a  great 
work  before  us,  and  I  want  to  call  upon  all  those  who  have  been 
members  of  this  Conference  to  go  home  and  take  hold  anew  of  this 
work.  It  will  require  tremendous  effort  to  bring  back  this  country 
to  where  it  was  before  it — I  was  going  to  say,  before  it  fell — but 
before  the  events  of  the  last  few  years.  If  we  can  bring  it  back  it 
will  be  a  noble  work,  to  say  nothing  of  what  we  ought  to  be  doing 
along  all  the  general  lines  of  peace  work. 


229 

Alfred  H.  Love:  I  feel  that  I  must  express  at  the  close  of  this 
most  remarkable  Conference  my  gratitude  to  the  Creator  for  the 
privilege  of  living  at  a  time  when  there  are  so  many  fervent  souls 
dedicated  to  peace  as  I  have  found  in  these  three  days.  Every 
word  that  has  been  uttered  has  my  commendation.  It  has  been 
made  clear  in  the  Conference  that  peace  is  a  result,  the  outcome 
and  recompense  of  righteousness  and  well-doing.  In  order  to 
have  peace  we  must  have  peace  conditions.  If  we  have  to-day  all 
the  peace  that  we  deserve,  let  us  deserve  more  by  being  more  fer- 
vent, more  devoted  to  the  principles  of  the  Master,  and  in  that 
way  we  shall  realize,  perhaps,  as  I  feel  that  I  have  realized  in  meas- 
ure on  this  occasion,  the  hope  of  the  twentieth  century.  It  is  possi- 
ble, dear  friends,  for  us  to  achieve  our  conceptions  and  our  ideals. 
Our  Heavenly  Father  would  never  have  given  us  the  conception  of 
a  higher  and  better  condition  than  that  which  we  see  about  us, 
and  yet  have  left  us  without  the  means  of  attaining  it.  "  If  the 
people  will  to  have  it  so,  who  shall  tell  the  end  thereof  ?  " 

Feankli:n'  S.  Blair:  I  have  been  a  silent  actor  through  all 
these  nine  sessions.  The  prayer  of  my  heart  has  been  that  every 
member  of  this  Conference  might  have  his  life  hid  with  Christ  in 
God.  The  last  paper  brought  that  beautifully  and  wonderfully  to 
our  minds.  I  endorse  every  word  which  John  B.  Garrett  has  said 
to  us  with  reference  to  the  whole  work  of  these  three  days.  There 
has  been  a  wonderful  providence  of  God  in  the  conception  and 
carrying  out  of  the  Conference.  Like  the  reader  of  one  of  the 
papers,  I  go  to  begin  anew,  with  more  earnestness,  this  life  hid  with 
Christ  in  God,  and  I  ask  the  prayers  of  this  Conference  for  us  in 
the  Southland,  where  you  know  we  have  had  more  opposition  in 
many  ways  than  almost  any  other  part  of  our  country,  those  of 
us,  especially,  who  began  our  lives  before  the  war  and  passed 
through  the  great  struggle  a  generation  ago.  It  is  our  wish  to  co- 
operate with  you  in  every  way  possible  in  the  further  extension  of 
the  work  of  peace. 

Clement  M.  Biddle:  It  is  not  the  custom  of  the  Society  of 
Friends  to  pass  resolutions  of  thanks,  or  to  be  as  expressive,  prob- 
abh',  as  we  should  be  to  those  who  work  for  us.  It  was  my  pleas- 
ure to  be  one  of  the  original  twenty-six  who  met  at  Lake  Mohonk, 
when  Benjamin  F.  Trueblood  presented  to  us  the  idea  of  this  Con- 
ference. We  were  divided — one  earnest,  faithful  man,  and  twenty- 
five  in  doubt — as  to  whether  it  was  possible  to  do  what  has  been 
done.  I  wish  to  say  that  Dr.  Trueblood  was  the  originator  of  it. 
He  has  carried  the  burden  of  the  work;  and  with  no  disrespect  to 
those  who  have  nobly  assisted  him  in  making  it  a  success,  to  him 
belongs  the  credit  of  the  plan  and  of  inducing  the  rest  of  us  to 
carry  it  to  the  successful  termination.  I  desire  to  give  him  my 
personal  thanks;  and  I  know  I  speak  for  all  those  assembled. 


230 
The  Chairman:    Dr.  Tmeblood,  say  something! 

Benjamin  F.  Teueblood:  This  Conference  is  one  of  the  best 
examples  I  have  seen  of  the  good  resnlts  that  come  from  the  prac- 
tical application  of  the  principle  of  Divine  guidance,  one  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  our  Quakerism.  The  Conference  grew 
out  of  the  simple  performance  of  a  very  simple  duty,  that  of  sug- 
gesting the  idea  of  the  holding  of  such  a  meeting.  So  strongly 
had  the  thought  impressed  itself  upon  me  for  some  months,  that 
when  I  went  to  Mohonk  last  spring  I  could  no  longer  refrain  from 
"  opening  "  the  subject  to  others.  There  were,  of  course,  doubts 
about  the  matter  in  the  minds  of  some  at  the  beginning,  and  have 
been  since;  but  I  wish  to  say  that  the  clearness  of  the  duty  of  pro- 
posing the  Conference  was  m^ade  much  clearer  by  the  fact  that  it 
was  approved  at  once  by  twenty-five  other  people  Avho  entered  into 
it  just  as  if  the  call  had  come  to  them.  Clement  M.  Biddle,  in  his 
appreciation  of  the  little  service  which  I  have  rendered,  has  been 
kind  enough  to  magnify,  greatly  I  think,  the  doubt  and  hesitancy 
of  others,  including  himself.  I  have  no  more  credit  in  the  matter 
than  the  other  twenty-five  have;  for  they  at  once  entered  into  the 
concern,  and  everyone  of  them  has  stood  by  it  with  absolute  and 
unwavering  faithfulness  to  the  end. 

The  outcome  so  far  has  been  remarkable,  and  the  full  outcome 
is  not  yet  seen.  We  have  had  a  most  interesting  and  inspiring 
Conference.  A  spirit  of  unity  and  co-operation  has  been  with  us 
from  the  first  moment  to  this  last.  This  spirit  of  unity  is  one  of 
the  growing  characteristics  of  our  time;  it  is  spreading  everywhere 
among  people  who  call  themselves  Christian,  and  even  among 
others.  The  era  of  strife  and  dogmatic  quarreling  and  division  in 
the  Christian  church  has  about  gone  by.  Wliat  may  come  of  this 
Conference  other  than  the  moral  and  spiritual  fruit  of  it,  we  must 
leave  to  the  future. 

I  deeply  appreciate  what  has  been  said  by  my  friend,  John  B. 
Garrett,  who  has,  with  the  hearty  and  intelligent  co-operation  of 
many  others,  taken  cheerfully  so  much  of  the  burden  of  the  pre- 
paration of  the  Conference  upon  himself.  What  he  has  said  just 
now  is  the  thing  which  Ave  need  most  to  remember.  This  is  a  great 
and  solemn  work  in  which  we  are  engaged.  My  friends,  we  have 
in  the  task  which  is  before  us  in  this  new  century — the  task  of  re- 
deeming the  world  from  hate  and  war  and  establishing  it  per- 
manently in  the  ways  of  love  and  peace — the  most  glorious  calling 
that  one  can  possibly  conceive.  The  cause  of  peace  has  gained 
much  in  the  past;  the  principles  for  which  we  have  stood  have 
already  permeated  society  more  deeply  than  many  suppose.  That 
ought  to  encourage  us  to  throw  ourselves  with  a  supreme  devotion 
into  the  task  that  is  before  us.  The  work  of  redeeming  the  world 
from  strife  and  bloodshed,  from  the  waste  of  its  intellectual  and 
physical  powers  in  the  ways  of  ruin  and  destruction,  and  of  turning 


231 

all  these  energies  of  thought  and  feeling  and  material  force  to  con- 
structive and  beneficent  ends,  is  enough^,  it  seems  to  me,  to  inspire 
any  soul  with  devotion  and  effort  of  the  highest  order. 

There  are  great  destinies  before  us.  This  world  is  not  always 
to  be  "  red  in  tooth  and  claw  "  ;  the  time  is  approaching  more  rap- 
idly than  many  suppose  when  the  man  shall  supplant  the  brute. 
Great  movements  advance  slowly,  so  it  is  said.  But  every  great 
movement,  as  it  progresses,  accumulates  power,  until,  at  the  last, 
according  to  the  divine  method,  it  reaches  its  end  as  in  the  twink- 
ling of  an  eye.  The  times  are  moving  rapidly,  and  I  want  us  to 
move  with  them.  The  cause  which  has  brought  us  together  is  very 
near  the  heart  of  our  JEaster.  It  is  His  purpose  that  it  shall  tri- 
umph, not  in  this  land  only,  but  in  all  lands;  that  America  may 
be  saved,  and  England,  and  Germany,  and  Russia,  and  China,  and 
South  Africa,  and  all  the  ends  of  the  earth,  from  the  desolations 
of  hate  and  war,  and  that  the  whole  world  may  be  brought  into  har- 
mony and  co-operation.  What  share  shall  we  have  in  this  great  ac- 
complishment? 

Isaac  Sharpless:  I  think  that  any  one  who  has  attended  the 
meetings  of  this  Conference  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Society  of  Friends  of  the  present  day  has  no  disposition  to  repudi- 
ate the  doctrines  of  their  first  predecessors  on  the  subject  of  peace. 
The  statements  unanimously  adopted  this  afternoon  are  a  strong 
endorsement  of  the  positions  taken  by  George  Fox.  We  are  not 
sorry  we  have  received  these  doctrines  as  a  heritage  from  the  past. 
We  have  no  disposition  to  apologize  for  them,  nor  are  we  at  all 
ashamed  to  avow  that  we  are  peace  men.  We  are  thankful,  on  the 
contrary,  that  this  precious  legacy  has  come  down  to  us,  and  that 
we  are  able  to  meet  together  here,  and  in  such  unity  continue  to 
bear  up  the  blessed  cause.  We  propose  to  continue  to  hold  up  the 
same  standard  and  pass  it  on  endorsed  and  strengthened. 

We  regret  that  we  appear  to  be  so  nearly  alone  among  Christian 
professors.  So  clear  does  the  position  seem  to  us  that  we  are  at  a 
loss  to  perceive  how  other  earnest,  honest  Christians  can  differ. 
We  are  encouraged  when  we  read  the  abstract  eulogiums  on  peace; 
but  when  war  issues  come  we  are  surprised  and  disappointed  at  the 
apparent  change  of  ground.  We  want  to  keep  ourselves  open  to 
conviction,  and  we  acknowledge  that  our  lonely  position  puts  upon 
us  a  great  burden  of  proof.  Can  it  be  that  the  small  minority  is 
right?  We  have  this  week  asked  ourselves  this  question,  and  for 
ourselves  we  have  again  soberly  answered  it  in  the  affirmative,  and 
so  we  shall  continue  to  answer  it  always  in  theory,  and  in  practice 
just  as  long  as  God  shall  give  us  strength  to  be  faithful  to  what  we 
know  to  be  right. 

Another  feature  which  must  have  been  noticed  during  the  meet- 
ings has  been  a  prevailing  optimism, — not  a  blind  optimism  which 
has  faith  just  because  we  know  the  strength  of  our  cause,  but  an  op- 


232 

timism  based  on  a  knowledge  of  the  advances  actually  made.  The 
paper  of  Dr.  Trueblood,  written  on  the  strength  of  abundant  knowl- 
edge, shows  conclusively  the  rapid  advance — an  advance  which 
prepares  the  way  for  a  still  more  rapid  advance  soon  to  come.  Our 
optimism  is  based,  too,  on  a  knowledge  of  the  number  of  forces 
working  for  us — the  growing  acquaintance  of  one  nation  with  an- 
other, the  development  of  world-wide  sympathies,  the  spirit  of  com- 
merce and  industr}^,  the  spread  of  Christianity,  the  education  of  the 
masses,  and  the  development  of  private  morals.  Yes,  Friends,  we 
are  associated  with  a  winning  cause,  and  we  know  it,  and  we  have 
the  enthusiasm  which  comes  from  knowledge.  A  few  more  cam- 
paigns, a  few  more  martyrs,  perhaps,  a  gi'eat  deal  more  energy  and 
wise  enterprise,  and  the  cause  is  won,  and  other  Christian  bodies 
will  come  crowding  each  other  to  fall  into  the  ranks  of  the  peace 
men. 

Friends  have  not  been  very  active  propagandists.  The  very 
feeling  of  their  own  complete  Tightness  has  made  many  of  them  slow 
to  take  the  stump  and  proclaim  the  arguments  for  the  good  cause. 
But  this  is  changing.  I  have  been  interested  in  the  proposition 
that  a  lot  of  us  should  go  to  Congress;  that  we  should  get  together 
and  say  to  each  other,  "  Go  to,  let  us  enter  the  Senate."  The  plan 
is,  unfortunately,  not  likely  to  be  successful,  but  I  am  inclined  to 
believe  that  for  our  present  purposes  it  is  right  in  theory,  and  the 
way  to  bring  it  about  is  to  begin  with  the  humbler  politics  of  the 
coi;ntry,  the  lowly  but  useful  offices  and  the  primary  meetings  of 
the  political  parties.  But  in  this  greater  activity  to  which  we  are 
called,  I  should  be  sorry  to  lose  the  typical  Friend  of  the  past,  the 
man  of  tender  conscience  and  guarded  life,  of  simple  tastes  and 
quiet  manners,  absolutely  truthful  and  cautious  and  faithful  and 
sweet  in  his  life,  "  Who  reverenced  his  king  as  if  it  were  his  con- 
science, and  his  conscience  as  his  king  " — the  man  and  woman  we 
have  all  known  and  loved.  Shall  we  lose  this  historic  character  as 
we  part  with  the  aloofness  from  the  world  which  perhaps  produced 
it,  "  if  he  rides  abroad  redressing  human  wrong  "  ? 

Not  so,  I  think,  if  he  comes  under  the  spirit  of  George  Fox; 
if  he  is  a  peace  man  not  because  he  believes  war  to  be  wasteful,  and 
productive  of  suffering,  or  contrary  to  some  pet  theory  of  morals, 
but  because  down  in  his  heart  he  feels  the  warm  spirit  of  divine  love 
and  power  that  takes  away  the  occasion  and  the  desire  and  the  pos- 
sibility of  war  and  revenge  and  hatred.  Pile  up  your  other  argu- 
ments as  you  will,  such  a  man  can  go  out  doing  a  strong,  active 
man's  full  duty  to  the  cause,  and  not  lose  one  iota  of  the  sweetness 
and  light  of  our  revered  Friends  of  the  past.  He  will  be  efficient 
and  practical,  and  at  the  same  time  graceful  and  moderate,  generous 
in  his  sympathies,  and  kindly  in  his  criticisms, — an  undaimted  ad- 
vocate, a  charitable  opponent. 


233 

The  Chairman:  I  think  we  shall  leave  this  room  to-night  pro- 
foundly thankful,  all  of  us,  that  we  have  been  here;  and  with  a 
prayer  in  our  hearts  for  the  blessing  of  Him  without  whose  help 
we  shall  have  labored  in  vain,  we  will  conclude  the  Conference. 

After  a  time  of  waiting  before  the  Lord,  during  which  thanks- 
giving and  prayer  were  voiced  by  Joseph  Elkinton,  Jr.,  and  Benja- 
min F.  Trueblood,  the  Chairman  declared  the  Conference  ad- 
journed without  day. 

Immediately  upon  the  close  of  the  Conference  the  committee 
appointed  for  that  purpose  (with  the  exception  of  President  M. 
Carey  Thomas,  who  found  it  impossible  to  serve)  prepared  and  for- 
warded to  the  President  of  the  United  States  the  following  letter: 


LETTER  TO  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

To  Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  of  the  United  States : 
Honored  and  Respected  Friend: 

The  Friends'  Peace  Conference,  in  session  at  Philadelphia  on  the  12th, 
13th,  14th  of  the  present  month,  composed  of  members  of  the  several 
bodies  of  Friends  in  America,  directed  that  an  address  on  its  behalf  be 
sent  to  thee,  and  appointed  the  undersigned  a  committee  to  prepare  and 
forward  it. 

The  desire  of  the  Conference  was,  that  there  should  be  expressed  its 
deep  sympathy  with  thee  in  the  arduous  duties  and  gi-eat  responsibilities 
which,  in  so  extraordinary  a  manner,  and  by  so  lamentable  an  event,  have 
devolved  upon  thee,  and  its  earnest  hope  that  these  may  be  so  met  and 
performed  as  to  promote  not  only  the  internal  concord  of  the  people  of 
this  nation,  but  also  good  will  and  consequent  peace  throughout  the  world. 

We  have  observed  with  encouragement  and  satisfaction,  the  passage 
in  thy  message  to  Congress  in  which  the  declarations  are  made  that  "  the 
true  end  of  every  great  and  free  people  should  be  self-respecting  peace," 
that  "  this  nation  most  earnestly  desires  sincere  and  cordial  friendship 
with  all  others,"  and  that  "  more  and  more  the  civilized  peoples  are  realiz- 
ing the  wicked  folly  of  war,  and  are  attaining  that  condition  of  just  and 
intelligent  regard  for  the  rights  of  others  which  will  in  the  end  make 
world-wide  peace  possible."  We  earnestly  desire  that  these  sentiments, 
so  true  and  timely,  may  grow  and  prevail,  and  that  during  thy  administra- 
tion the  public  opinion  in  behalf  of  rational  methods  for  settling  inter- 
national differences  may  be  fostered,  and  all  possible  steps  be  taken  to 
make  such  methods  practical  and  effective.  We  are  convinced  that  the 
stability  and  true  grandeur  of  the  nation  can  be  promoted  only  by  those 
means  and  methods  which  are  inherently  right,  and  are  in  accord  with 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ;  in  this  conviction,  we  would  earnestly  en- 
courage thee  in  all  thy  purposes  and  undertakings  which  will  make  for 
higher  ideals  of  citizenship  and  will  increase  the  moral  power  of  the  re- 
public. 

As  it  has  been  the  mission  of  the  nation,  during  its  first  century,  to  ex- 
hibit and  illustrate  to  the  world  the  principles  of  true  democracy  and  in- 
dividual liberty,  so  may  its  next  contribution  to  civilization  be  a  demon- 
stration of  the  fact  that  there  are  tried  and  approved  methods  of  securing 
justice  which  makes  war  unnecessary  and  that  righteousness  of  intercourse 


334 


between  nations,  as  between  men,  will  always  command  peace.  May  it 
bethy  honorable  distinction  in  coming  time,  to  have  helped  to  build  these 
principles  securely  in  the  foundation  of  our  national  structure. 

Commending  thee  to  the  care  and  guidance  of  Almighty  God,  as  the 
source  of  unfailing  Wisdom  and  Light,  we  subscribe  ourselves,  with  re- 
spect, thy  friends. 


Signed, 


Isaac  Shabplkss, 
William  W.  Birdsall, 
Philip  C.  Garrett. 


Howard  M.  Jenkins, 
RtJFUs  M.  Jones, 
Susan  W.  Janney. 


^  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


F 


INDEX. 


Address  of  Friends  to  Washington  in 

17^9.51- 
American  Ideal,  The,  37,228. 
Arbitration,  45,    155,   158,   160,   208, 

220. 
Ash,  Samuel  S.,  54. 
Altitude  of  Christians  toward  Peace 

and  War,  65. 

Baily,  Hannah  J.,  119. 

Haily,  Joshua  L.,  136,  141.,  206. 

Barton,  George  A.,  19,  209. 

Rcuhani,  Ida  Whipple,  112. 

Bible  Schools,  Importance  of  Teach- 
ing Peace  Principles  in,  S3. 

Biddle,  Clement  M.,  229. 

Birdsall,  William  W.,  34,  78,  no, 
132. 

Blair,  Franklin  S.,  229. 

Bond,  Elizabeth  Powell,  180. 

Borton,  Joel,  162. 

Bright,  John,  126,  127,  1S9. 

Burgess,  Emilie  U.,  194. 

Chapman,  Mariana  W.,  45,  loi. 

Chawner,  John,  33,  106. 

Christian  Idea  of  Force,  70,  105. 

Christianity  and  Peace,  16,  24,29,  31, 
32,  33,  41,  49.  54.  55.  59.  65.  67,  80, 
83.  92,  loi,  103,  i6j,  172,  183,  190, 
192,  201,  210,  215,  218,  223. 

Constancy  in  Peace  Effort,  201. 

Cruelty  of  War,  44,  47,  114,  203. 

Declaration  of  the  Conference,  208. 
Dennis,  William  C,  159. 
Dillingham,  John  H.,  210. 
Disarmament,  145. 
Doukhobors,  76,  80. 

Early  Christianity  and  War,  59. 
Early  Friends  and  Peace,  39. 
Elkinton.  Joseph,  80,  106,  191. 
Encouragements  for   Peace,  56,  81, 
87,  no,  n3,  162,  193. 

Failure  of   the  Church   to  Promote 

Peace,  24,  31,  32,  66,  102. 
Ferris,  David,  133. 
Flitcraft,  Allen,  31. 
Force,  Moral,  71,  81,  105. 
Fox,  George,  30,  39,  40,  50,  147. 


Friend?  and  Peace,  30,  39,  4S,  54,  58, 
82,  98,  104,  106,  107,  108,  132,  133, 
146, 163,  164,  166,  188,  191,  198,  202, 
218,  228,  231. 

Friends  in  Political  Life,  32,  104, 
108,  189. 

Friends  not  Anarchists,  58. 

Garrett,  John  B.,  n,  13,34,  107,227. 
Garrett,  Philip  C. ,  146,  207,  209. 

Hague  Court,  118,  121,  125,  156,  162, 

196,  208. 
Hatred  of  Foreigners,  17,  21,  27. 
Holmes,  Jesse  H.,  65. 
Hotchkiss,  Willis  R.,  210. 
Howard  Association,  25. 
Hubbard,  William  G.,  31,  39. 

Individual    Responsibility,    66,    78, 

172. 
Inflnences   for   Peace,    81,    87,    no, 

n3,  193,  218. 
Inherent  Immorality  of  War,  45,  49, 

53.  55- 
Internationalism,   17,    23,    no,    117, 
n9,  124,  131,  134,  152,  160,  193. 

Janney,  O.  Edward,  218. 

Janney,  Susan  W.,  193. 

Jenkins,  Howard  M.,  34,  37,  56,  162, 

206. 
Jewish  Ideas  of  Peace,  17,  20. 
Jones,  Augustine,  124. 
Jones,  Rufus  M.,  29,  104,  222. 

Kimber,  Anthony  M.,  54. 

Leeds,  Josiah  W.,  213. 

Letter  to  President  Roosevelt,  206, 

233. 
Lloyd,  Elizabeth,  105. 
Looting,  177. 
Love,  Alfred  H.,  229. 

Magill,  Edward  H.,  53,  130. 
Makers  of  Peace,  The,  180. 
McGrew,  Edwin,  106,  201. 
Militarism,  Remedies  for,  213. 
Morrow,  Dr.  James,  103. 
Neutrality  on  the  Great  Lakes,  145. 
Newport,  David,  loi. 
New  Testament   Grounds  of  Peace, 
16,  41,  71. 


235 


236 


Nicholson,  S.  Edgar,  98. 
Nobel  Peace  Prizes,  56. 

Old  Testament  and  Peace,  19,  29,  31, 
32,  33.  78. 

Origiu  and  Organization  of  the  Con- 
ference, 3,  12,  229,  230. 

Patriotism,  False,  85,  176. 
Peace  and  Heroism,  68,  175,  211. 
Peace  as  Involved  in  the  Christian 

Method,  222. 
Peace  in  the  New  Testament,  16,  41, 

71- 
Peace  in  the  Old  Testament,  19,  29, 

31.  32,  33.  78. 
Peace  Principles  in  Political  L,ife  and 

Institutions,  124. 
Peace,  True  Spirit  of,  183. 
Pearson,  William  L,.,  102,  183. 
Penn's  Work  for  Peace,  132,  146,  161, 

162,  219. 
Pennypacker,  Charles  H.,  209. 
Perry,  Arthur,  164. 
Philippine  War,  43,  89,  95,  99,  19S, 

203. 
Poem  "  Gentle  and  Mighty,"  112. 
Powell,  Joseph,  54. 
Pretlow,  Robert  E.,  189. 
Practicability  of  Peace,  28,  93,   102, 

104,   106,   107,    108,   137,   140,   144, 

158,  164,  167,  213,  219,  232. 
Price,  William  L,.,  163. 
Private  and  Pnblic  War,  159. 
Program  of  the  Conference,  7. 
Progress  of  Peace,  56,  87,  no,   113, 

119,  136,  152,  159,  162,  193. 


Raidabaugh,  P.  W.,  83. 
Remedies  for  Militarism,  213. 
Reply   of  W^ashington   to    Friends' 

Address,  52. 
Russell,  Elbert,  16. 

Sanders,  Amos,  188. 

Sharpless,  Isaac,  48,  137,  231. 

Shipley,  Catharine  M.,  106. 

Smith,  Stephen  R.,  11,  132. 

Soldier,  A,  on  War,  54. 

South  African  War,  42,  89,  107. 

Spanish  War,   27,   37,  47,  50,  83,  99, 

107,  203. 
Stanley,  Edmund,  87. 

Tebbetts,  Charles  E.,  198. 

Thomiis,  Anna  Braithwaite,  32,  134, 

228. 
Thomas,  M.  Carey,  81,  109. 
Thomas,  Richard  H.,  55,  70. 
Trueblood,  Bsnjamin  F.,   12,  36,  56, 

152,  198,  206,  207,  230. 

Unthank,  James  B.,  34,  58,  166. 

War  Always  Evil,  53,  54. 

War  Inconsistent  with  the  Genius  of 

Quakerism,  198. 
Washington,  Address  of  Friends  to, 

51  ;  Reply  of,  52. 
Wilbur,  Henry  W.,  172,  210. 
Women  and  Peace,  82,  93,  loi,  102, 

116,  194. 
Wood,  James,  59. 
Wood,  John  B.,  192. 
Woodv,  Mary  Chawner,  24,  102. 
Wright,  Ellen  C,  113. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recalL 

3oSep'u^.Y!  : 

IN  STACKS 

SEP  161964 

jjyjlT6A=2^M 

Due  end  of  SUM^'IF'^  P-.-- 

^         J/Il     o   ft'Tf          Ik 

eywjecT  to  lec^il  after  — 

JUL  2  0  /I       911 

BEC'D  LD  JUL  1 

871  -5PM  20 

■jsi^s^War       --£HF"'- 

UC  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 

iiiiHil 


1 00083 


